Thursday, 21 August 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that whereas: (1) Identification cards and numbers severely threaten our freedom to live unfettered by excessive bureaucratic surveillance; (2) the Government has been unable to present any realistic justification for the introduction of ID cards and numbers. We humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal to inflict ID cards and numbers on the freedom-loving people of Australia. by Senator Haines (from 421 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will: Provide the Government and its agencies opportunity to interfere with the practice of religion in this country, Transfer to the Government powers not given or intended to be given by the Constitution, Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this or any future Government, Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political `Star Chamber' with unjustifiable power, Abrogate Common Law and common liberty, Set the state above the individual. We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject the Bill of Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap may be terminated by either Government on one year's notice from 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated one year from October 1986. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any suggestion that family allowances be paid at a flat rate and instead should ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 76 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 14 citizens) and Peter Baume (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners most humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government pass on the full benefits of lower international oil prices on March 1st, 1986; and (ii) that the Hawke Labor Government does not increase or extend fuel taxes And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senators Cooney (from 180 citizens) and Robertson (from 270 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12 December 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Bill of Rights will have the power to override and negate our Common Law within five years of its enactment. 2. Because the Bill of Rights is based on an International Covenant, this will take the control of our country out of the hands of the people and their democratically elected representatives, giving the power to those outside Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray: 1. That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights and all cognate Bills. 2. That as our representatives, you protect our Australian heritage and christian culture and values, both in the education system, and through the media. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 179 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the draft Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 23 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1987 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1987 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1987 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1986 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the Committees consider Proposed Expenditure and Departmental Expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate of 22 February 1985. (4) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Friday, 17 October 1986. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, contingent upon the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Macklin moving the following motions together: (a) That the Order of the Day relating to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 and associated Bills have precedence over all other business this day. (b) That, when that Order of the Day is called upon, and the consideration of those Bills is resumed in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman of Committees forthwith put the following Question: That the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 be reported with amendments, and that that Question be determined without debate. (c) That, upon that report being made, the President forthwith put the following Questions: (i) that the report of the Committee be adopted; and (ii) that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 be now read a third time, and that these Questions be determined without debate. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to standing order 109a I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name for the next day of sitting for disallowance of Defence Determination No. 19 of 1986. Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was concerned that the retrospective application of the defence determination may have been prejudicial to individuals. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has explained the operation of the instrument and assured the Committee that there will be no prejudice to members of the Services. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that it is my intention to withdraw, immediately after Question Time and any matter of public importance or urgency motion today, Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name. Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —This ordinance increased very considerably the fees payable for taxi licences. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was concerned that the retrospective operation of this ordinance could have prejudiced the rights of individuals who might have applied for taxi licences before the fees were increased. It would have been unfair for such persons to have had to pay the new fees in relation to applications lodged before those fees became operative. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has informed the Committee that there was one such application lodged and that the new ordinance applied retrospectively to it. However, in that case the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, having properly considered the application, has granted the licence to the individual concerned and recommended that he should not be prejudiced by the large fee increases. As I remember, it went from $250 to $80,000. The Minister has decided to remit part of the fee payable for the licence so that the individual does not have to pay more than he would have if the amending ordinance had not been made. This is a very important gesture by the Minister for Territories in which he recognises that delegated legislation should not retrospectively prejudice an individual's pre-existing application to pursue a particular livelihood. The Committee expresses its admiration of the Minister for his decisive action in this matter. This is the last day on which the Senate could consider these issues, and thus, under standing order 109a, I will withdraw my notice at a later hour of this day. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard for the information of honourable senators copies of the Committee's correspondence on this matter. Leave granted. The correspondence read as follows- 15 April 1986 The Hon. Gordon Scholes, M.P. Minister for Territories Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 10 April 1986, the Committee considered the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, being A.C.T. Ordinance No. 3 of 1986 tabled in the Senate on 9 April 1986. The Committee is concerned about the dramatic increase in the cost of a taxi or hire car licence and the reviewability of decision to grant such licences. The Ordinance provides, among other things, for the payment of $80,000 for the grant of a taxi licence and $60,000 for the grant of a hire car licence. The Ordinance also limits the number of such licences to 149 and 22 respectively, or such other higher number as the Minister determines. Two points may be made. Firstly, the Explanatory Statement indicates that the Ordinance was not referred to the A.C.T. House of Assembly before it was made. It was believed that the publicity attendant on such a referral would have encouraged persons to lodge advance applications for licences in order to avoid the scheme. Perhaps you could explain to the Committee how the respective licences were granted prior to this Ordinance and how this system has been altered by the Amendment. The Committee would be grateful if you could also indicate whether any licence applications presently pending before the Registrar of Motor Vehicles will be affected by these intentionally unpublished changes. Secondly, it appears that the three hundred fold increase in fees may not affect those persons who are already licence holders except to the extent of legislatively legitimating and encouraging current commercial dealing in personal licences. Thus, it may be that no existing rights are threatened or affected by the Ordinance. However, the Committee must satisfy itself under Principles (b), (c) and (d) of its terms of reference whether it is appropriate for delegated legislation to provide that the granting of individual licences to engage in a particular livelihood should rest in the apparently unreviewable and unstructured discretion of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, and, from 27 March 1986, the date of gazettal, require as a precondition the payment of a fee 300 times greater than the fee that was required on and prior to 26 March 1986. The Committee would be grateful if you could assist it by commenting and advising on these two points. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman 12 May 1986 Senator Barney Cooney Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations & Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Cooney I refer to your letter of 15 April 1986 about the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1986 of the Australian Capital Territory. By way of background, the amending Ordinance is an interim one. It will be followed by legislation to implement a comprehensive review of the taxi and private hire car industry. That review is nearly complete, and is based on recommendations made by the House of Assembly, in consultation with the industry. The thrust of the reforms will be to partially deregulate the industry and in particular to make all licences transferable. Prior to the amendment, the number of licences on issue from time to time was determined by reference to a policy which took into account economic considerations including the viability of the taxi industry, the livelihood of those in the industry and consumer demands, in addition to the safety of the travelling public. Under the new scheme, to which the amending Ordinance gives partial effect, the same factors will be taken into account, but by the Minister (as distinct from the Registrar). The other major change to the system is the increase in the fee payable on the issue of a licence. The new fee is based upon the current market value of a transferable taxi licence and has been assessed at $80,000 on the basis of recent sales. (Of the 149 licences which are currently on issue, 80 are transferable. The remainder, which have been issued since the change in the law in 1975, are non-transferable.) The new fee will form a central element in the reforms to which I have referred. Although not all licences will be transferable until the remainder of the package has been made law, the purpose of increasing the fee at this stage is to prevent profiteering; that is, to avoid the situation where a licence obtained now, for a nominal fee, could be converted into a substantial asset when licences are made transferable. Also, to prevent profiteering by existing non-transferable licence holders, it is intended that a fee representing 50% of the assessed market value will be payable under the future legislation as the premium for converting a non-transferable licence into a transferable one. The new fees apply across the board and are not discretionary. Moreover, the amending Ordinance will make the rights of applicants neither more nor less dependent on the Registrar's powers. On the question of reviewability of decisions of the Registrar, I draw your attention to Section 104 of the principal Ordinance, which provides for review on the merits of the Registrar's decisions by the Court of Petty Sessions. Implementation of the balance of the recommendations for reform will involve the inclusion in the Ordinance of provisions whereby decisions about the grant of taxi and private hire car licences will be made subject to legislatively prescribed criteria. At the time of making of the amending Ordinance there was one application outstanding under the former provisions. I am told that this application is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Ombudsman and that it is the Department's intention to deal with it having regard to any recommendation that may be made by the Ombudsman. It is correct that the new fees do not affect the rights or existing licence holders. It is not correct that the new legislation legitimates or encourages (to use your words) unlawful dealing in licences. The legal position of persons who have traded or who may trade licences illegally remains unchanged and action is being and will be taken against such persons. Yours sincerely GORDON SCHOLES 2 June 1986 The Hon. Gordon Scholes, M.P. Minister for Territories Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 29 May 1986, the Committee considered your letter of 12 May 1986, concerning the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 3 of 1986). The Committee notes that the Ordinance is an interim one to be followed shortly by legislation to implement a comprehensive review of the taxi and private hire-car industry in the A.C.T. The Committee also notes, and thanks you for, your observations concerning the reviewability of the Registrar's decision by a Court of Petty Sessions under section 104 of the Principal Ordinance. By its letter to you of 15 April 1986, the Committee evidenced its concern to discover if the changes effected by the amendment Ordinance on 27 May 1986 could have adversely affected any person who had, pending before the Registrar, an application for a licence. On 6 May 1986, the Committee received a letter from a Mr P. J. Green of 19 Gleeson Place, Kambah, who argued that, as a person who had such an application pending since 13 August 1985, he had been disadvantaged by the Ordinance. Your letter to the Committee confirms that there is one application outstanding under the former provisions of the Ordinance. It is not part of the Committee's function (as distinct from that of Senators) to act on behalf of an individual. However, individual cases of complaint or grievance can illustrate the possible abrogation by delegated legislation of existing legal rights and give rise to a need to apply the Committee's Principles to protect the rights of all or any individuals from undue trespass. The Committee notes, with some concern, the statement in your letter in relation to the outstanding application- ``I am told that this application is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Ombudsman and that it is the Department's intention to deal with it having regard to any recommendation that may be made by the Ombudsman'' (emphasis added). The Committee is strongly of the view that it is for you, as the responsible Minister, to give such directions as are proper and necessary to ensure that existing legislation in your portfolio is administered in accordance with its letter, spirit and intention and that new delegated legislation does not infringe the Principles of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Where you carry ministerial responsibility for a matter, the intentions of your Department are of interest only to the extent that they are also your intentions and have been conveyed as such to your Department for implementation. Your letter therefore, leaves it a little unclear what remedy, if any, will be made available by you to any person whose rights, if any, may have been prejudiced by the amendment Ordinance. The Committee is most anxious to clarify this matter rather that engage in disallowance procedures, though because time is passing a protective notice of motion has been given. The Committee would be grateful therefore, if you could indicate whether, notwithstanding an earlier application to the Registrar, the amendment Ordinance has or will have any retrospective effect on such an earlier application. It would assist the Committee whether such an application, pre-dating the amendment Ordinance, is thereby precluded from being dealt with on its merits, in accordance with the law as it stood when the application was made and without reference to the new amendments, in particular the 300 fold increase in fees. As you will appreciate, the Committee's predominant concern in this matter is to ensure that a tabled instrument of delegated legislation does not infringe its Principles by trespassing unduly on important existing rights to a source of livelihood. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman 1 August 1986 Senator Barney Cooney Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Cooney I refer to your letter of 2 June 1986 concerning the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 (``the amending Ordinance''). I have been advised that the amending Ordinance does apply to Mr Green's application. I have also received a recommendation from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that Mr Green's application for a taxi licence be granted. I have accepted the Registrar's recommendation. I have also accepted the Registrar's recommendation that Mr Green should not be prejudiced by the amending Ordinance. I will therefore be exercising my powers under section 209 of the Motor Traffic Ordinance to remit part of the fee for the licence, so that only the previously applicable fee of $250 is payable. I will also be exercising my power under section 3 of the amending Ordinance to increase the number of taxi licences on issue. In these circumstances I can now assure the Committee that no persons who applied for a taxi licence before the amending Ordinance became law have been prejudiced by the amendment. Yours sincerely GORDON SCHOLES Senator COONEY —Might I say also that Senator Reid has been very active in this matter. I think she too has a notice and she has shown very considerable interest in this matter. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that it is my intention to withdraw, immediately after Question Time and any matter of public importance or urgency motion today, Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos. 1 and 3, standing in my name. I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to the withdrawal. Leave granted. Senator REID —The first notice of motion is similar in wording and form to the notice of motion referred to by Senator Cooney and which has been resolved. About that I will say no more. The documents will be incorporated in Hansard with the documents he has tabled. That is the same matter as I was pursuing. In relation to notice of motion No. 3 I gave notice to disallow a portion of the Seat of Government (Administration) (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 because of the transfer of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board from the Department of Education to the Department of Territories. At that time the real concern was that the transfer was made without members of the staff of the Apprenticeship Board knowing that it had happened. In fact, when they found out about it that transfer had actually occurred several weeks previously. The staff felt somewhat threatened by the position. They did not know what their status was, what the future was or what would happen. Also there was concern that the technical and further education colleges-run by the Department of Education-and the Apprenticeship Board, which are so closely related, would be run by different departments. In the intervening time of the winter recess it has been established that the staff of the Apprenticeship Board now know what is happening. In fact, the transfer is working satisfactorily and, I think, to the advantage of everybody. I think also that the principals of the TAFE colleges are happy with the new arrangements. The unfortunate part was that there was not more communication prior to that transfer. Some of the public servants who were involved in the transfer were therefore left with a feeling of insecurity. The matter has now been resolved satisfactorily. Later this day I will seek to withdraw the notice of motion seeking disallowance. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the time for presentation of the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee Report on Land Acquisition in New South Wales by the Australian Army be varied to provide that the Committee reports as soon as possible. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I give notice that, contingent upon (a) a Bill being introduced in the Senate or received from the House of Representatives, (b) an indication being given to the Senate by a Minister or the Senator in charge of the Bill that it is not intended that the Bill be passed during the current period of sittings and (c) the Senate on any day concluding its consideration of any item of business and prior to the Senate proceeding to the consideration of another item of business, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Hamer moving a motion to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief explanation of the reason for this contingent notice of motion. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senators will be aware that I am a strong advocate of more Government Bills being referred to Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees for public examination. I know many Senators share this view, and it is, I think, generally agreed that nearly all Bills which have been so referred have been substantially improved as a consequence. It is of course not to be expected that Governments will welcome such public examination-and probably criticism-but it is the job of the non-government parties to see that Government legislation is critically examined. The normal objection to referring a Bill to a Committee has been that it would involve delay. It was in order to avoid this objection that at the end of the last session I proposed that six Bills be referred to various committees for examination and report back by the first sitting day in this session. These were Bills which the Government did not propose to proceed with last session, so there would have been no delays because of the committee examination. Before proposing the Bills to be referred, I consulted with Opposition and Australian Democrats Senators on the relevant committees to confirm that public examination of the Bills would be helpful, and that such examination was, in their opinion, within the capacity of the committee. Unfortunately, all the Government Chairmen of the relevant committees-and some irrelevant ones-claimed that their committees could not possibly examine the bills adequately, because they were already fully committed on other work. Indeed, Mr President, the referral of bills is normally going to be with short notice, and it seems to me very bad administration if a Legislative and General Purpose Committee so locks itself in to its general purpose function that it is incapable of performing its legislative functions when such function is proposed. I am therefore giving notice now of the possibility that, at the end of this session, I shall move to refer to appropriate committees any Bills which are to be stood over at the end of the session, but which would benefit from public examination by a committee. It seems to me only normal administration that committees would keep their operations sufficiently flexible so that they can deal with any bills so referred, in the time scale determined by the Senate, which would normally be the first sitting day of the next session. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls upon the Federal Government to lift the present restrictions upon the development and mining of uranium deposits in the Northern Territory, allowing the Territory access to a valuable resource which would increase the Territory's revenue raising capacity; and (b) calls upon the Federal Government to recognise that the traditional Aboriginal owners of land in the Northern Territory have the same right to proceed with uranium mining developments on that land as other Australians in the States, acknowledging that such ventures would allow the Aboriginal people to achieve financial independence and a release from dependence upon the Federal welfare system. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the following Special Reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for consideration and, if necessary, report thereon: (a) The Cotton Case Involving the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; and (b) The Industrial Sugar Mills Case Involving the Department of Defence. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, all reports presented by the Commonwealth Ombudsman pursuant to section 17 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 stand referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, without any Question being put, for consideration and, if necessary, report thereon. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —Mr President, I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators, and I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Warlpiri Kukatja and Ngarti Land Claim-Report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. 2. Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Limited-Annual Report 1984-85. 3. Commonwealth Grants Commission-Second Report 1986 on Financing the Australian Capital Territory-Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973. 4. Export Development Grants Board-Final Report for the Period 1 July 1985-5 January 1986-Pursuant to sub-sections 30 (2) and 43 (2) of the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985 and Sub-section 41 (4) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974. 5. Remuneration Tribunal-1986 Review-Pursuant to sub-sections 6 (5) and 7 (7) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. 6. Nominal Defendant-Annual Report 1985. 7. Australian Canned Fruits Corporation-Annual Report 1985-Pursuant to section 48 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979. 8. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation-Annual Report 1985-Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973. 9. Services Canteens Trust Fund-Annual Report 1985-Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. 10. Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund-Annual Report 1985-Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. 11. Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund-Annual Report 1985-Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947. 12. Department of Local Government and Administrative Services-Annual Report 1984-85. 13. New Office Technology-ASTEC Report-Pursuant to sub-section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 14. Consultation and Co-ordination for Matters Affecting Australian Local Government-Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Report-Pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Act 1976. 15. Review of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations-Task Group Report. 16. Election Funding and Financial Disclosure-Elections 1984-Final Report-Pursuant to section 17 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. 17. Canberra College of Advanced Education-Report of Council for 1985-Pursuant to sub-section 30 (3) of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967-Together with a Statement on the Delay in Tabling this Report-Pursuant to section 34c of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 18. Australian Maritime College-Annual Report 1985-Pursuant to sub-section 39 (4) of the Maritime College Act 1978. Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to: That the time for presentation of the Report of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on a proposed amendment to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1986 be extended to 19 September 1986. Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 4, be postponed till 12 sitting days after today. The PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators, I table a further special report of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry dealing with the publication by the Commission of reasons for its ruling given on 5 August 1986 on the meaning of `misbehaviour' for the purposes of section 72 of the Constitution. I also table, with the approval of His Honour Mr Justice Murphy, a copy of the medical certificate supplied to the Presiding Officers and to the Parliamentary Commission regarding the health of Mr Justice Murphy. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Cooney) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 2, be postponed till a later hour of the day. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.16) —I wish to make it quite clear that the Opposition is opposed to this measure being passed by the Senate. We are particularly concerned that this measure should have been brought on for debate in such haste, without adequate opportunity for all honourable senators to make a close study of it and to consider whether, as an alternative, any amendments should be made to it. The fact is, Mr President, that just a few minutes ago you tabled some highly important and highly relevant documents concerning the matters that are to be debated in relation to this Bill. I understand that there was some last minute effort by the Government to delay the tabling of those documents, but I am very pleased to find that they have been tabled. Nevertheless, that emphasises the extraordinary haste with which the Government is seeking to have this legislation debated and passed by the Senate. This is yet another indication of the fact that this Government, its Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), and the representative of the Attorney-General in this place, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), have lost all sense of balance, judgment and reason in regard to this very difficult and very serious question which has been before the Parliament now for two and a half years. We believe that it is a quite inappropriate time to be having these debates and to be forced to make statements in the public arena in the circumstances of Mr Justice Murphy's health. Most of us, and the public, have not had an opportunity to see the medical certificate which you, Mr President, tabled a few minutes ago. There have been references to it. Some people have had the opportunity to see it, but certainly not all honourable senators. That also is a most relevant matter. Let me say at the outset that we all have great sympathy for Mr Justice Murphy and his family in the circumstances in which he now finds himself. However, we feel that those circumstances impose some constraint in conducting this debate in a proper way in the Parliament at present. It would have been far better if the Government had adopted the approach of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry and left the decision as to how this matter should be handled in the present circumstances to the good sense of the commissioners, all three of whom are judges of great experience and high integrity who, as such, have had long experience in coping with the problem of a very grave illness being experienced by a litigant or an accused person before them in court. Their last comments in their report were: If the Commission is to carry through its task to completion, it will be necessary for the Houses to extend time to a date not earlier than 31 March 1987. The prognosis of the medical certificate makes serious the problems posed by this course. To continue hearings if the judge were too ill to take part in them would be contrary to established practice and to natural justice. The Commission adjourned hearings scheduled for Sydney on 5 August because of the medical certificate about the judge's health. We believe that the proper course in these circumstances is for the Parliament simply to extend the term of the Commission of Inquiry, as it indicated it would, and leave it to the Commission to decide what course it should adopt in relation to the medical condition of the judge. That would have saved the Parliament the very distressing task of debating the future of this Commission in the circumstances that have been outlined. I can only put down on record my very deep regret that on behalf of the Opposition-and indeed this relates to any honourable senator who speaks in this debate-we are being forced to speak now on this rushed legislation. It is a headlong attempt by the Government to bury this Commission as quickly as it possibly can without any adequate debate at all. I remind the chamber that this Commission is one of the Government's own initiatives. It was also a measure pushed with great speed through the Parliament and we supported it because we saw it as about the only reasoned judgment that the Government has ever exercised in relation to the problem presented by Mr Justice Murphy. Mr Bowen is to be commended for the fact that, even bearing in mind the sorry history of this Government's sad lack of performance and its abdication of duty throughout this whole affair, in May this year when he proposed this special Commission of Inquiry he at least gave some recognition to the real problem that has always faced the Parliament and the nation. Mr Bowen then said that the Commission of Inquiry was being set up because of the need to protect the standing and the integrity of the High Court of Australia and the preservation of public confidence in it. That view has always been held by, and has animated all the actions of, the Opposition on this matter for the last two and a half years. The circumstances which led to the establishment of that inquiry in May still stand and that is made very clear by the Commission in its report to you, Mr President, which you tabled on Tuesday. The report of the Commission, dated 5 August, stated: The situation which existed at the date when the Act became law, 13 May 1986, was such that Parliament regarded the task allotted to the Commission as one of national importance. That situation remains unchanged. Clearly, as long as Mr Justice Murphy sits on the High Court and claims to sit on the High Court, as long as there is no clear statement by him or the Government and as long as he does not resign, those circumstances stand. As I have said it may be that the exercise given to the Commission will be very difficult to carry out in the light of Mr Justice Murphy's state of health. Unfortunately, as I have said, I am having to debate this matter without having seen the medical report which has just been tabled. The Government has been given ample opportunity to deal with this question. Questions were asked the other day about the future of Mr Justice Murphy. Mr Lionel Bowen, in answering a question on Tuesday of this week in another place, said about Mr Justice Murphy: Regrettably, it appears that because of the diagnosis and the nature of the illness, he is weakening and therefore may not be able to resume sittings. I think when the medical evidence has been tabled, as it may, it will be conclusive as to that point. I would only hope, from the point of view of an ordinary human being and a fellow Australian, that there is a remission of his illness. Certainly we would also share that hope. He continued: I would hope that there is a chance that his health can be restored and that he can regain his position on the Court. He would then be able to meet any of the accusers that he may have, including those in the Opposition. That is a very clear statement from the Attorney-General only two days ago about his hope-which we share-that Mr Justice Murphy may have a remission. He also raised the possibility that Mr Justice Murphy may continue to sit on the High Court. In a statement by Mr Justice Murphy at the end of July, in which he dropped something of a bombshell, he said: On Tuesday, July 29, I resumed the full exercise of my constitutional and statutory functions as a justice of the High Court of Australia. . . . I have already commenced sitting. He then talked about his medical advice. He stated: I have chosen to spend what portion I can of the limited time available in doing as much judicial duty as I usefully can. I will bear in my mind the interests of the litigants. The fact is that we have no clear indication as to what are the intentions of Mr Justice Murphy about his sitting on the Court in the future. We have no clear indications from the Government, other than statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), Senator Gareth Evans and Mr Bowen, supporting Mr Justice Murphy in his resumption of what he called his constitutional rights. Therefore, in those circumstances, all the conditions, problems and allegations remain which led to the establishment of this Commission. It is, of course, quite inappropriate in our view, as it was in the view of everybody in this Parliament-and, indeed, everybody concerned, including Mr Justice Murphy-that he should sit until the various allegations that were made against him could be properly investigated and the Commission was able to report on them, so that Parliament could then make its final judgment. That is the situation. It remains exactly the same, except for the question of Mr Justice Murphy's health. All those problems remain. All the great constitutional questions remain. In those circumstances there is absolutely no justification for this Commission to be terminated, and certainly not terminated with the incredible haste that the Government is exhibiting in the way in which it is handling the matter this week. For those reasons the Opposition opposes the Bill as a whole. The Commission of Inquiry has been working on the task the Parliament gave it. It has reported that it has formulated a number of specific allegations, made in precise terms, as is required by the Act that set up the Commission. Those have been delivered to the judge, but some are still being prepared. The commissioners are ready to take evidence on the first allegation. They have not, of course, proceeded to do so because of the judge's health. They have said: Counsel assisting the Commission estimate that the hearing of evidence on all present allegations, including cross-examination, up to the stage at which the Judge might be called to give evidence would last at least four months, and possibly much longer. That is one reason why the commissioners cannot report to Parliament by 30 September. They seek an extension to 31 March 1987. It is obvious that the commissioners have a substantial amount of material on which they should be taking evidence, making findings and reporting to Parliament. I regret that I must be critical of His Honour in these circumstances but his response to the matter, which is on the public record, reveals a lack of appreciation of the decision of the Parliament and the Government. He said: Between July 15 and 30 I received from those assisting the Commission a number of purported allegations. They were allegations drawn up in precise terms by the Commission. They were specific, not purported, allegations. The judge went on to say: In my view they- that is, the allegations- are either untrue or do not constitute misbehaviour. I have already been cleared of many of them by the unanimous decision of the first Senate committee. I do not see the relevance of that first Senate committee to this question, because this is an altogether different Commission of Inquiry. In that statement, the judge is seeking to set himself up as a judge in his own cause in respect of both the meaning of misbehaviour and the truth, or otherwise, of the allegations. The responsibility of the Commission is repudiated by the judge. In other words, the decision of the Parliament and of the Government is being repudiated. For all those reasons, there is absolutely no justification for the Government to wind up this Commission of Inquiry with the unseemly and unjustified haste being exhibited. I regret to say that this is an example of the long and sorry history of this Government's handling of this most difficult and sensitive issue. Despite all the bumbling ways and fumbling reasoning exhibited from time to time by the present Attorney-General, at least for a brief time back in May he saw the problem. I regret to say that he seems to have lost the fleeting grasp he had then. His statements in Parliament the other day and before Parliament resumed, to which I have referred, show that he has again lost his way. Indeed, the Prime Minister has lost his sense of judgment in this matter as well. Back in May, it was everybody's understanding that the judge would not sit again until the Commission reported. Yet, the other day, the Prime Minister supported this so-called `constitutional right'. Nobody seems to have understood that there are duties as well as rights on the part of judges as well as everyone else. The happenings in the past few weeks and the terms of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill 1986 exhibit the hand and influence of the former Attorney-General, the present Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. Incidentally, all these matters seemed to be revived when he was acting Attorney-General. I suppose that that happened by chance. He was acting Attorney-General when these matters got off the rails again. The Bill exhibits his total lack of judgment and reasoning. It is a repudiation of all the principles that the former Attorney-General espoused in the past in respect of freedom of information, open government and the rest of it. This Bill is the worst example of repudiation of those principles that I or anyone else has ever seen. As reported in the morning Press, people such as Professor Howard, and Professor Winterton, and others, have indicated that they have never seen anything like it. So I charge great responsibility for this matter on Senator Gareth Evans who has, from the very beginning of this case, always shown a total abdication of responsibility. If the problem had been grasped by the Government in the first place when he was Attorney-General, the matter may well have been resolved in a speedy and satisfactory manner a long time ago. I now turn to the terms of the Bill. I express the Opposition's utter abhorrence and rejection of the attempt by this Bill to suppress forever any allegations that have been made, not only against Mr Justice Murphy but also against any other person he may or may not have been associated with. Even allegations which may have been made against other persons are suppressed forever in this piece of legislation. This is the most utter repudiation of all the principles of open government, freedom of information, civil liberties and all the democratic principles that this Parliament has ever been asked to pass. If the Australian Democrats support this legislation, as I understand they propose to do, they will forfeit any respect that they may have ever had from any section of the population and certainly any claim that they may have ever had that they believe in these fundamental principles of government. As I said, this legislation does not simply protect evidence that may have been given to the Commission in respect of Mr Justice Murphy. It protects any documents that contain material relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy. They do not even have to be allegations. There may be favourable mention of Mr Justice Murphy. But if he is mentioned in documents, no matter what other highly important matters they contain, they are protected as class A documents, and they are protected forever. There is another class of document which may be released by the Presiding Officers, but the Presiding Officers have no discretion either to release these class A documents at any time in the future. The class B documents may be released by the authority of the Presiding Officers, which presumably means they both have to agree. The class B documents, which are so extraordinarily closely protected, are documents which presumably do not contain any material relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy but which may contain material relating to the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia or any other matter. The Government is attempting to give effect to this Bill before it is even debated in the Senate. It wants to protect in this way any document which contains a reference to the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution. It wants to protect a document which simply gives an opinion as to what that section means. We know what Senator Gareth Evans thinks it means. We know the restricted meaning he wants to give it. He wants to suppress in this Bill any other meaning that an independent person or lawyer may have about the meaning of this section. He is so obsessed with his own opinions and their righteousness, so obsessed with the problem of Mr Justice Murphy, for whom I know he has such high regard and respect, that he also wants to repudiate all his academic standards of intellectual freedom by suppressing a document which contains an opinion about section 72 of the Constitution. A more serious matter is the suppression of the class A documents. As I have said, in those there is not just material relating to Mr Justice Murphy-which, whether it is unfavourable or favourable, will be suppressed forever-but also documents that contain possible allegations against other people, or material relevant to other people's conduct. They also will be suppressed forever. The legislation, on the face of it-this may be the subject of debate at the Committee stage-would also suppress documents which have been received by this Commission from the National Crime Authority or some other body, documents which have come into existence in a way quite separate from the Commission but which have been given to it because under the Act setting up the inquiry it was envisaged that the Commission may require, and no doubt has received, material from the National Crime Authority. As a result of this definition of a class A document, it seems that those documents will be suppressed and frozen forever if they refer to Mr Justice Murphy. The legislation goes on to provide quite draconian penalties of fines and imprisonment for any person who discloses any allegation relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy derived from any document which is in the hands of the Commission or the staff of the Commission. As I have said, that will apply forever. There is no time limit on it as there is under the Archives Act for ordinary archival material. There are no limits and rules to enable documents to be released at any time under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no way in which anybody can claim these documents and have these matters judicially determined as there is under that other legislation. These documents are simply to be buried forever. Law enforcement authorities will never have access to them; nor will any research worker in the dim distant future have any right to them. This action by the Government can be seen only as an attempt to promote Mr Justice Murphy in his lifetime to the pantheon of the Labor gods. That is the effect of it. Extraordinarily sensitive documents have been opened up after time. For example, the Petrov papers were opened up after 30 years. Highly sensitive defence and security documents-- Senator Gareth Evans —Just have a look at the amendment in front of you. Senator DURACK —How can I read an amendment when I am speaking? If there is an amendment to this legislation it just shows the disgraceful haste in which the Government has brought this thing forward. Instead of interjecting on me in my last two minutes, the Minister ought to be ashamed of himself for having introduced this legislation in this Parliament. If it were not for the Senate and for a free Press in this country-both of which I suppose the Minister wants to suppress, from the way he is going on-this disgraceful Bill would have become law yesterday. If the Government wants to amend it we will seriously look at what it proposes. But there is no honour and no claim to any reason or decency in the Minister saying: `Look at the amendment now'. I will certainly look at it when I get time. Senator Evans and his Government are to be judged on what they proposed and passed through the House of Representatives, not on something that may have been cooked up when members of the Government read this morning's Press. They would not accept the Opposition's complaints yesterday. They would not even give the Opposition time yesterday to prepare amendments. They will not put their tails between their legs, claim that they made an oversight and beg forgiveness. We will listen to and look at the Government's amendment, but its purposes are clear. They have been clear all along. The Government wants to suppress forever any information which may be relevant not only to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy but also to that of other people. It wants to suppress documents and information prepared by the National Crime Authority. That is a disgraceful purpose for which those opposite should forever be ashamed. Perhaps parts of the Bill can be fixed up with amendments. The Opposition will propose a number of amendments. I come back to the original point. The Opposition is opposed to the repeal of this Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. The Opposition is opposed to winding it up because the circumstances which gave rise to it still stand. We recognise the problem that confronts everybody because of the illness of Mr Justice Murphy but until there is a clear decision about his future and as long as there is some intention on his and the Government's part that he should continue to work as a judge of the High Court of Australia the reasons for the Commission of Inquiry stand. It must be able to complete its work and report to the Parliament. Only then can any final decision properly be made about the future standing of Mr Justice Murphy as a justice of the High Court. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.46) —The Australian Democrats support the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill. Indeed, we only wish, first, that there had been no need for the legislation and, secondly, that it had contained the sorts of protective measures regarding the documents which the Opposition appears to think it has. Far from believing that this is a disgraceful Bill, our opinion was and still is that the original legislation establishing the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry was disgraceful. Prior to that two Senate select committees had inquired into the behaviour of Mr Justice Murphy and he had been through two trials, the second of which acquitted him of the charges laid. In my speech on the second reading of the Bill to establish the inquiry in the first place I said that the matter should have rested unless and until additional charges on which court action could be taken were laid. We opposed the original inquiry, as I said, because the judge had been acquitted. We oppose the Opposition's arguments on this occasion because they are of no substance at all. As far as we are concerned the documents that the Opposition complains will be suppressed not only should have done to them what this Bill intended to do prior to the Government's mitigating amendment but also should be disposed of properly. They should be shredded, burned or anything else but they should not be left around so that somewhere down the track another government can repeal this legislation or clauses relating to access to the documents so that they can be dispersed around the community presumably for the salacious enjoyment of anybody who wants to see them. We have to remember that the documents about which we are talking consist entirely of a series of suspicions, allegations, assertions and suggestions about Mr Lionel Murphy. Senator Lewis —What do you know about it? Have you got any evidence? What are you talking about? Senator HAINES —The honourable senator should read the Bill and he will see that `class A document' means a document referred to in sub-section (1) that contains material relating to the conduct of the Hon. Lionel Keith Murphy. If that does not mean that an assortment of people, with or without malice, around this country have forwarded to the Commission of Inquiry whatever ideas, suspicions, allegations assertions, and so on they have been able to dream up, I am not sure what Opposition senators think it means. Certainly and importantly, there has been no evidence taken on any of those allegations, and neither has the Commission of Inquiry come down with any determinations on it. As far as the class B documents are concerned relating to various lawyers' and others' arguments about what is the meaning of section 72 (ii) of the Constitution, those are merely academic documents that can be and have been produced at any time that anybody, with or without a legal mind, sees fit to do so. To consider that those sorts of allegations could be brought forward some time down the track, particularly following the very likely death of the person about whom the allegations have been made, is quite outrageous. Senator Walters —What about allegations about others? Senator HAINES —Senator Walters raises a matter I was about to come to of allegations about other people. Presumably the authors of the documents classified as class A documents who made allegations about Mr Justice Murphy in those documents, and who presumably may have made allegations about other people, have not been stricken from the face of this earth. They should have already, I would have thought, and certainly still have the opportunity to pass on that information about other people to the relevant law enforcement agencies such as the Director of Public Prosecutions or any other law enforcement agency. Anybody who thinks that this is muzzling the opportunity people in this country have to pass on information about an assortment of other people is being quite ridiculous. Other things that have been raised with me over the last little while as problems in this legislation include the fact that there are penalties for unlawful disclosure, as if somehow this Bill were setting a precedent. I suggest that Opposition senators who think that $5,000 or imprisonment for six months, or both, for disclosure of information by a natural person is draconian ought to have a look at some of the penalties under the secrecy provisions of other pieces of legislation. The Census and Statistics Act 1905, for example, contains far more draconian penalties for disclosure than does this Bill. Senator Archer —One hundred thousand dollars? Senator HAINES —For natural persons. I suggest that the honourable senator have another look-if he has had a look already-at sub-clause 8 (a) under `Penalty', which states: . . . where the defendant is a natural person-$5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months. . . The Census and Statistics Act gives $5,000 or two years imprisonment, or both. The Income Tax Assessment Act provides for $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both. Both of those provisions are stronger than the penalty applied in this legislation. The Crimes Act gives two years, the National Crime Authority Act provides for $5,000 or one year, and there is an assortment of other Acts ranging from the Human Rights Commission through to export market development grants Acts, for goodness sake, which contain penalties of a fine or a term of imprisonment, or both. So to carry on as if somehow these are not only draconian but unique indicates that some people in this place are not aware of the penalties that exist in other legislation. The bleeding about freedom of information, the denial of access and freedom of speech, and so on, by Opposition senators sits very strangely with their insistence that freedom of information legislation be used to protect, for example, sensitive commercial organisations in this country so that their competitors cannot use it against them. Either we talk about absolute freedom of speech and access to documents, or governments are entitled to be selective and protective of those areas where they think that is required. Therefore, the Australian Democrats quite simply support this legislation on the grounds that we do not believe that the inquiry should have been set up in the first place. Had there not been that inquiry this accumulation of documents would not have occurred, the need for most of the provisions of this piece of legislation would not have occurred either, and the Bill itself would not have seen the light of day. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.57) —The Senate is debating a Bill for an Act to repeal the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act 1986. The Bill purports to do two things. It aims to put an end immediately to the work of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, a commission set up by this Parliament and initiated by the Government. The Bill goes further than that. It sets out to protect virtually totally all the evidence, all the documents, that have been before that inquiry. Whether they apply to Mr Justice Lionel Murphy or to others, whether they implicate others, whether there may be criminal allegations of others, it seeks to prevent their use. Nothing that has ever been before this Parliament, or I believe before any other parliament, has ever equalled this in such flagrant breach of the principles of natural justice or the principles of democratic law. Nothing, I stress, has done this, and I want to examine that in detail. Those of us who over the years have come to know Lionel Murphy, whether in this chamber or elsewhere, will be very sad that he has suffered such a grievous, serious illness. We sympathise with him and his family that this should be so. Tragically, it is the fate of one in four living human beings to achieve at some stage a malignancy which may be the terminal illness that results in their death. Sadly for him and his family, unfortunately he has arrived at such a situation. We would hope, and indeed wish, that there can be remission, that his life can be spared, that he can be denied pain, and that he can be given comfort in his journey in what we hope will be the months and even years ahead. No one can say how long the illness may last, how long the journey will be, or whether there will be remissions. The medical certificate that has been tabled today at first glance indicates that without further treatment the prognosis is three to nine months. Should chemotherapy be used there may be a limited-about 20 per cent-prospect of prolonging his survival. Let us hope that there is remission. Let us hope anyhow that he does not suffer and that his family will be spared the pain and anguish of the journey. In doing that, we must not in any way harass the man or his family. On the other hand, we must not give to him-this is a basic principle of law-any privilege, any kind of protection, that is not given to the most ordinary citizen in the community. He must have exactly the legal privileges, the legal protections and the legal responsibilities that the humblest member of the community has. Indeed, I have heard the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) espouse that principle of others in the past. What is that principle? The fact is that there are many people who appear as defendants before courts of law, quasi-judicial or judicial inquiries who find in their journey, before a verdict is reached, that they are suffering from a serious or terminal illness. We ought to look at those procedures and follow them precisely in this case. Mr Justice Lionel Murphy should not be denied what is available to others. He should not be given anything in excess of that which is available to others. What happens is that first of all the matter is left to the court of law. That is the principle of British justice. Courts of law continually face situations of people who are seriously or terminally ill and who are unable to come before them as witnesses. The court makes the judgment. In the general nature of things the court adjourns the hearing indefinitely on the basis that, first of all, it is hoped that the person may recover in health sufficiently to come before it. Who can say that that may not be so in the ordinary principle? The court knows that if in fact the defendant should die the action will automatically be terminated. Therefore, there are clear principles of British law to be followed. Those are the principles that should be available to Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. I repeat: They must be no different from the principles available to everyone else. Those of us who are here today can think of the action proceeding in the New South Wales courts at the moment in regard to a defendant, indeed associated as a co-defendant with a former member of parliament, who is seriously ill. Does that mean that in that case one should seek a termination of that defendant's trial? After all, what lesser rights has that defendant in that trial than has Mr Justice Lionel Murphy? Indeed, if the former Attorney-General, the Minister for Resources and Energy, or any of his colleagues are seeking to give special rights they are doing terrible damage to the principle of British law. Their own reputations will remain totally in tatters. What has happened? Tragically, this matter has always been a cover-up. How is it that two days have passed since the Commission submitted, on 19 August, a document to the Government, enclosing a special report and yet a debate has taken place in another place without the privilege of this report. The Australian Democrats have their case demolished by this report which I now hold in my hand. Three judges have made available to the Parliament-it was not available to the other place-a vitally important document. This is a document which gets right to the heart of the charges against Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. This document states that the three judges have looked at the interpretation of section 72 of the Constitution and reached a unanimous decision. Indeed, that decision, upon being reached, destroys the case of the Australian Democrats totally. Let it be made perfectly clear that the real people who must share the blame for this Bill and its journey are the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats have it within their capacity to prevent the Government from doing an unprecedented dastardly act. They have it within their capacity to do that but they are not doing it. All of Senator Haines's arguments today fall to the ground totally because of both this document and others. Let me remind the Senate what, in fact, the judges have said. I will read the comments of just one judge although each of the judges has reached the same verdict. Sir George Lush said: Accordingly, my opinion is that the word `misbehaviour' in S.72 is used in its ordinary meaning, and not in the restricted sense of `misconduct in office'. It is not confined, either, to conduct of a criminal nature. Let us bear in mind that this is the decision of three of the most distinguished former judges in Australia and that this is a decision of a Commission set up by the Government. We have that before us. Therefore, clearly before the Parliament is a series of facts which need to be examined. Of course, one does not need to look at procedures in courts of law at all. One needs to look at the evidence before one. When the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act was set up the explanatory memorandum stated: The Commission will not call upon Mr Justice Murphy to give evidence unless the Commission is of the opinion that there is evidence of misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution sufficient to require an answer and the Commission has given to Mr Justice Murphy particulars in writing of that evidence. The Commission is to base its findings on evidence admissible in a court of law. Let us understand quite clearly what the Government has said and what the Commission is charged to do. The Commission will not call upon Mr Justice Murphy unless it is of the opinion that there is evidence of misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution and if that evidence is sufficient to require an answer. That is precisely what the Commission did. The former judge, Sir George Lush, said in the opening paragraph of his statement: By Thursday 17 July 1986 counsel assisting the Commission had cause to be delivered to those representing Mr Justice Murphy twelve documents each purporting to set out, a specific allegation of conduct by the Judge (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act, S. 5 (2)). Two further such documents have been delivered. In a former report to this Parliament the Commission said of the nature of that evidence: Counsel assisting the Commission estimate that the hearing of evidence on all present allegations, including cross-examination, up to the stage at which the Judge might be called on to give evidence, (S. 6 (1)) would last at least four months, and possibly much longer. The Act fixes 30 September 1986 as the date for the making of the Commission's report, but under S. 8 (2) that time may be extended. Therefore, we have before us a clear situation that three very eminent ex-judges have looked at the evidence so far and have said that it comes within the nature of that paragraph I read from the explanatory memorandum; that there appeared to be basic evidence and that they had written to counsel for Mr Justice Lionel Murphy saying that they wanted him to appear. At the time those judges wrote that it was clear that they themselves regarded that there was a very significant series of matters to be answered. However, the puzzlement about this is that throughout the whole of this situation Mr Justice Lionel Murphy has been emphatic in saying that he wants the Commission to continue so that he can clear his name. It is not he who is asking for this situation. He has not changed his mind on this at all. Some honourable senators may remember the dying words of Hamlet when he said to Horatio: O, good Horatio, what a wounded name, Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind me? He made the plea that Horatio not let things lie in their confused state but let the evidence come out so that the facts be known. Of course, this is flying in the face of the whole of the situation. In fact, what the Government has done is to confuse this with Macbeth's statement: If it were done, when 't is done, then 't were well It were done quickly: If the assassination Could trammel up the consequence, and catch, With his surcease, success; that but this blow Might be the be-all and the end-all here, But here, upon this bank and shoal of time, We'd jump the life to come-But in these cases, We still have judgment here . . . Let me remind honourable senators of that: He went on to say `in these cases we still have judgment here'. Teaching bloody execution returns to plague the inventor. This Bill has judgment here, and it will return to plague the inventor. The judge himself, the defendant, has said: `I do not want the inquiry to stop; I want it to go on'. But let me go further. Sadly, if the terminal illness should take its course and Mr Justice Murphy should die, the protection of the ordinary libel laws does not function, as we have seen in many cases. Senator Grimes has been an exponent of this view in relation to a former Premier of New South Wales. Allegations may be made wildly and without substantial proof, but there is no protection after death for a defendant. Again I say: . . . what a wounded name, Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind me? This Bill does not seek to protect Lionel Murphy. The fundamental error and cruelty of this Bill is that patently it seeks to protect those whose names are also contained in the documents, that is, those who were on the other end of the telephone. That in itself is the ugly shame for this Government. It knows that it cannot protect Mr Justice Murphy; it knows that the correct answer is to do what the judge has asked for-that is, let us clean it up; let us have this inquiry. It knows it cannot do that, but also it knows that fundamentally it is seeking to stop any inquiry about any other person or persons whose name or names may be contained in these documents and who might have committed acts which may require examination by Crown law authorities which may invoke prosecution. How can any government, any former Attorney-General or anybody who poses as a lawyer seek to commit into perpetuity a denial of evidence? This is not a pursuit of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. Tragically enough, that pursuit will go on without the protection of libel laws in the years ahead; that will go on, as the world knows. This is a protection of others. The Government should tell us why it is seeking to protect these other people. Even with this latter-day repentance of a few amendments, why should the Government, extraordinarily, put into the hands of the Presiding Officers decisions which are essentially for the Parliament to make? Why should the Presiding Officers have any right to make determinations in a matter of common law concerning human beings? More importantly, why should they be left with the terrible responsibility, and therefore the damage to their reputations? From now on are we to be able to insinuate that Madam Speaker and Mr President are holding documents which may contain this or which may not contain that? What kind of an utter mare's-nest has been set up? Why is this being done? We come back to the whole purpose of this inquiry. The allegations against the judge did not arise from the Parliament; they did not arise at all from political parties. They arose fundamentally from a series of tapes that had been recorded by police officers who now have been shown to have acted in good faith and in all honesty to seek information about breaches of the law. Those tapes set about investigations which have gone on elsewhere. It is important to understand that Mr Justice Stewart of the Royal Commission of Inquiry Into Alleged Telephone Interceptions has validated those tapes. That is very important. Coincidentally, that validation was announced after the termination of the last trial of Mr Justice Murphy. I make no insidious inference from that. I simply say that following that trial and acquittal, it became known that the judge of the Royal Commission had said that the tapes were valid. Therefore, an entirely different responsibility is put upon this Commission, these judges who now face the situation that their duties are to be terminated. These judges have said that they take note of the original Act and the injunction upon them that they must not call Mr Justice Lionel Murphy before them until they have been convinced that there is very significant evidence that an inquiry is needed. They have come to that conclusion, and in 14 cases they have put out this material. Now, despite Mr Justice Murphy saying that he does not want the inquiry to be terminated, some others obviously are influencing this Government to stop the inquiry because it is in their interests that it should not proceed. It cannot be in the interest of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. It would have been in his interest for us to respect his request that it proceed and his belief that it would clear his name. That would be the fair thing to do for him. The stopping of the inquiry can only be in the interests of others. Let the Government tell us who are these other people whose interests are that this should be so. Let me now come forcibly to the position of the Australian Democrats. In their homely phrase, they pose that they are here to keep the bastards honest. They have said that many times. They who take the cloak of honesty had better wear it here today, hair-shirt and all. The six members here are charged with carrying out their parliamentary responsibilities, specifically in relation to section 72 of the Constitution. I appeal to them to consider that their earlier stance has now been destroyed. Three very eminent retired judges have said that the basis of judgment of the meaning of `misbehaviour' involves an ordinary definition-a wider definition, and not a criminal one. Therefore it is for the Democrats, in the end, to find out what that evidence is and to act upon it. In other words, they have a responsibility and if they are not willing to discharge that responsibility, they should resign from this Parliament. The Democrats' job is now quite clear. Under section 72 it is to seek what evidence there is whilst the defendant is alive and make a judgment inside this chamber. It is not to run away from it, nor to utter emotive words that become headlines, such as saying that the papers should be burnt. They are now saying that papers which may well contain evidence which could cause the Crown Solicitor or a similar law officer to act against a person who is believed to have committed a breach of the law should be burnt. But what emotive words Senator Haines used today. She said that all these things are just suspicions, allegations and assertions. I invite Senator Haines to reconsider her words, because quite clearly the Act which the Senate is now seeking to repeal made it very clear that the Commission would not simply summon Mr Justice Murphy before it if there were just some suspicions, allegations or assertions. The Act stated that the Commission would not call upon Mr Justice Murphy to give evidence unless the Commission was of the opinion that there was evidence of misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution sufficient to require an answer. The Commission has given in writing to Mr Justice Murphy particulars of that evidence. The Commission has to base its findings on evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. We now know, as Senator Haines and her Democrats know, that Sir George Lush and his colleagues, in confirmation of that, have said that they have delivered 14 documents to the lawyers for Mr Justice Murphy in those terms-not suspicions, not allegations, not assertions, but an approach in the calm, common sense of law to seek out the truth. It is no use the Democrats doing today what they have said they will do, hiding behind the fact that they said earlier that they did not believe that there ought to be a Commission; that there should not have been any trial or investigation of Mr Justice Murphy because everything was based on suspicions, allegations and assertions. That argument has now totally failed. The Democrats have before them today, in a document from the Commission, far more substantial evidence. They must stand up and be counted in making their final judgment. Therefore, they need before them the evidence of proven misbehaviour or otherwise. They cannot run away from that. I repeat: This Bill is the worst breach of natural justice I have ever seen in any parliament and can be regarded only as protection by the Government of persons other than Mr Justice Lionel Murphy because it cannot protect him. Only heaven and the course of time-and one hopes that it will be a gentle course of time-can protect him. He will stand his judgment in terms of the ebb and flow of the libel laws. There is no end to this matter. No amount of suppression by the Government, no amount of trying to burn the papers to get rid of them or trying to pass the onus on to the Presiding Officers, will bring an end to this matter. What an ugly situation! The Government thinks: `We will stop the truth coming out; we will stop journalists from publishing the truth'. I have never seen before such an attempt to destroy the freedom of the Press. If there is a fundamental freedom of the Press, it is the right to probe, to find. After all, if the Press reports something and it is wrong, the full force of the libel laws is upon the Press. So it is not a question of stopping the Press because it may do harm. Any living individual has full recourse to the law if the Press publishes something that can be shown to be wrong. So the Government is not trying to stop the publication of unsubstantiated allegations. If that is so, the test must be applied to every individual and not simply to Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. That is the fundamental situation. Mr Justice Lionel Murphy deserves sympathy for his illness, as does everyone who suffers such a serious and terminal illness. He deserves exactly the same protections as every other individual gets. He has exactly the same rights and responsibilities before the courts of law as every individual has, and not one tittle more. The fact is that Mr Justice Murphy has asked that the Commission continue, so this Bill does not relate to protecting him at all. The stopping of the Commission will be to protect others with whom the Australian Labor Party has some affinity or affection or self-interest. Who are they? If this Bill goes through, the Democrats will have connived at a situation whereby from now to eternity there will be inferences, allegations and insinuations made. It will be this person or that person the Government will be trying to protect. In other words, the Government will have created a monstrosity, the absolute perversion of law. I appeal to the Government. More importantly, I appeal to those who believe that their job is to keep us honest. Physician, cure thyself. The Democrats should consider the present situation and not come to us and tell us what their decision was three months or six months ago. They should consider their decision today in terms of the three ex-judges and the decisions and recommendations those judges have made. When the Democrats do so they will have only one recourse- to reject this Bill totally because it is fundamentally wrong and a grave breach of every principle of British law. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.25) —The Constitution of this nation places a very heavy burden on all parliamentarians, both members of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate, in relation to justices of the High Court of Australia and the other courts created by the Parliament. Section 72 (ii) of the Constitution says that those justices: . . . shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity . . . So if a justice of the High Court or of one of the other courts created by the Parliament is at any time to be removed from office there has to be an address from both Houses of the Parliament praying for that judge's removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. If the Parliament is at any time to make such a decision, then clearly it must make a decision as to what is proved misbehaviour or incapacity. For parliamentarians to make such a determination they would need every assistance they could have from legal advisers. We have had tabled in the Parliament today a series of documents which would be of enormous value to parliamentarians in determining those questions. We have a set of reasons by the Hon. Sir George Lush, who is Chairman of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, which goes to ten pages; we have reasons by the Hon. Sir Richard Blackburn, OBE, another member of the Commission of Inquiry, which go to some 13 pages, and we have the reasons of the Hon. Andrew Wells, QC, the third member of the Commission of Inquiry, which go to some 36 pages-all of which deal with these fundamental constitutional provisions. Yet the Bill that we are debating in the Senate today would prohibit forever any person ever having access to these opinions, to the documents. I have them today-- Senator Gareth Evans —They are class B documents, and they are at the discretion of the Presiding Officers. Senator LEWIS —That is what the Bill says. Senator Evans can scream to high heaven about people having discretions to do all sorts of things but the truth of the matter is that the Bill we are debating today prohibits access forever. Senator Gareth Evans —Class B documents are at the discretion of the Presiding Officers, for God's sake. Senator LEWIS —Senator Evans is producing amendments right at the last minute. One amendment was given to us half-way through Senator Sir John Carrick's speech. Do we have time to consider these amendments? We are half-way through this debate already, way into the third speaker's speech, and the Government is still trying to amend this legislation, which has already been dealt with by the House of Representatives. Yet we are expected to be able to understand all of these last minute amendments and changes of mind which this Government has because once again it has stupidly followed the advice of Senator Evans. Time after time since Senator Evans has had a job in this Parliament, he has given this Government bad advice. How the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) puts up with having him in his Ministry is absolutely beyond me. Let me come back to the documents which we now have and go through parts of them as to the meaning of the word `misbehaviour' in the Constitution. What an invaluable set of documents they are because they give the total lie to the arguments being raised by Senator Janine Haines on behalf of the Australian Democrats as to why she and the Democrats are going to support the Government on this Bill. Senator Haines's argument is very simple. She says that His Honour went through the misery of having two Senate committees of inquiry into this matter. She does not say that the general opinion of those committees was that the matter ought to be looked at further. She just refers to the committees. Then she says that His Honour went through a trial. Again, she does not say that at that trial the jury convicted him. She does not mention that. His Honour then went through a second trial and at the conclusion of that trial the jury acquitted him. Senator Haines says: `That was the end of the matter'. That was the end of the matter as far as that conviction was concerned, there is no question about that. However, immediately after that conviction other matters were raised, the question of the judge's misbehaviour became a public issue, and this Government-not the Opposition-set up the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. We have the report of the judges as to the meaning of the word `misbehaviour'. Do they agree with Senator Haines? Not on your life, they do not. Let me quote the opinions. Firstly, I quote the Chairman, Sir George Lush, a very distinguished Victorian judge in his time. He said in part, talking about when section 72 was put into the Constitution: . . . in its original form it gave the sole power of removal to Parliament, to be exercised at will or, in other words, without the need to show cause. Then for the better protection of the independence of the judges it was amended so that a cause for dismissal had to be assigned and proved-a provision designed (a) to make impossible attempts to remove judges for purely political reasons and (b) to secure to the judge a right to defend himself. The word chosen to describe the cause was `misbehaviour'. This was a word traditionally used in defining the tenure of an office . . . Sir George Lush gave a lot of reasons and then stated: Accordingly, my opinion is that the word `misbehaviour' in S. 72 is used in its ordinary meaning, and not in the restricted sense of `misconduct in office'. It is not confined, either, to conduct of a criminal nature. I hope Senator Haines, who has left the chamber, having made her emotional diatribe about the people in this Parliament who want to bring this matter to some proper conclusion, is listening in her office because Sir George Lush quite clearly refutes everything she has said. Sir George Lush continued: It is not confined, either, to conduct of a criminal nature. This interpretation can be said to leave judges open to the investigative activities of the contemporary world, and so to expose them to pressures to which, in the interests of independence, they should not be exposed. He then pointed out: The other side of this is that, however S. 72 may be interpreted, judges are not immune from the activities to which I have referred- he had referred to a number of activities- though it may be that there is a higher incentive for the investigator if there is a possibility that he may procure a removal. Of course, we thoroughly agree that there is a very important principle of law in relation to what Sir George Lush said about that matter. Let me now refer to the reasons given by the Hon. Sir Richard Blackburn, who on page 12 of his reasons states: All the foregoing discussion relates to the question whether `proved misbehaviour' in Section 72 of the Constitution must, as a matter of construction, be limited as contended for by counsel for Murphy J. In my opinion the reverse is correct. The material available for solving this problem of construction suggests that `proved misbehaviour' means such misconduct, whether criminal or not, and whether or not displayed in the actual exercise of judicial functions, as, being morally wrong, demonstrates the unfitness for office of the judge in question. Whether we are talking about Mr Justice Murphy or some future judge with whom this Parliament may have to deal, it is absolutely vital for those of us who are concerned about the interpretation of section 72 of the Constitution to understand the point he is making. Sir Richard Blackburn further states: In my opinion the word `proved' in the section implies that Parliament may adopt such method of proof as it sees fit, but may not address arbitrarily or without adverting to the question of proof. In each case, Parliament must decide, first, whether there is proved misbehaviour, and secondly, whether bearing in mind the great importance, implied in the Constitution, of the independence of the judges, it should address for the removal of the judge. That is exactly the point we have been putting repeatedly on behalf of the Opposition in relation to this matter. It is directly contrary to the opinions expressed by Senator Haines and also, I might say, by Senator Gareth Evans, who has some strong views on this matter which are quite contrary to these reasons. That is probably one of the reasons why he wishes to suppress this material. I refer to the third member of the Parliamentary Commission, the Honourable Andrew Wells, QC. Let me say as an aside that these judges know that they are inquiring into the activities of a judge of the High Court of Australia. They are not giving some academic lecture in the halls of academia. They are not writing some article for the Australian Law Journal. They are not even standing up in Parliament and making a speech about the subject in general. They are dealing specifically with a judge of the High Court and they know how desperately important the whole subject is. The three of them have come out unanimously with the views which we in the Opposition parties have been expressing for some considerable time. The Honourable Andrew Wells, QC, stated: The office of judge differs markedly from that of many other public officials. The performance of his duty calls on him to display, of a high order, the qualities of stability of temperament, moral and intellectual courage and integrity, and respect for the law. Those and other like qualities of character and fitness for office, if displayed by a judge in the exercise of his judicial function, are unlikely to be found wanting in his conduct when not acting in office. If they are said to be genuinely possessed and not feigned, they would stand uneasily with conduct in private affairs that testifies to their absence. There are, however, other qualities that do not carry the same guarantee of stability, integrity, and respect for the law in private life. For example, a man may possess a profound learning, intellectual adroitness, and an accurate memory, and, by using them, adequately discharge the duties of many public offices, but, without more, he could not discharge the duties of judicial office. In short, a man's moral worth, in general, pervades his life both in and out of office. My final quote from the Hon. Andrew Wells states: In my view, the construction of s.72 should be governed by the foregoing principles. Accordingly, the word `misbehaviour' must be held to extend to conduct of the judge in or beyond the execution of his judicial office, that represents so serious a departure from standards of proper behaviour by such a judge that it must be found to have destroyed public confidence that he will continue to do his duty under and pursuant to the constitution. Those three opinions having been given, is it any wonder that the judges' advisers said: `We have to finish this Committee of Inquiry. We have to wrap it up and bury it forever'? The new Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines, would have all these documents pulped so that they would never be available to the historians of this country. What the Government has done by producing this legislation is to convict His Honour in his absence because he now has no chance in any way of clearing his name. This legislation terminates the inquiry; it finishes it for all time. It buries it and allows the rumour- mongers to start, and they have already started. I have heard rumours about all sorts of things which I will not mention. Three or four rumours have been passed to me about the reasons why the Government is burying this inquiry. It is an absolute nonsense for the Government to think that this inquiry and these documents will remain secret forever. Of course, they will not. Of course, there will be all sorts of peculiar leaks and people will find ways of trying to write about the matter and make some sort of reference to it. It is an absolute nonsense to think that it will not be released. The historians will now start to lobby, and they will lobby forever, so that at some stage in the future a sensible government will revoke this legislation and all of the material will become available. Of course, this Government, by way of this legislation, is making sure that when that happens-when the legislation is removed by a future government-it will attract massive headlines, books will be written about it and it will all make a great story. All of the kids at present in the public gallery may very well read about it. It probably will not happen in my time, but I hope that they enjoy it in their old age. It is absolute nonsense for the Government to think that a matter of such vital importance could be kept secret forever. Of course, one wonders why? Once again the Australian Labor Party has demonstrated that it has no concern for democracy, no concern for freedom, no concern for the Parliament and no concern for the institutions of this great nation. Time after time, if it suits the Australian Labor Party, it rides roughshod over these fundamental principles which are of such vital importance to the people of this country. It does not care. It has never been able to care. Members of the Labor Party listen to advice from people such as Senator Gareth Evans, whose judgment has always failed. Biggles and his raid on Tasmania is a typical example of the sort of advice he keeps giving this Government. How the Government puts up with it is absolutely beyond me. The Bill of Rights, of course, is another of Senator Evans's absolute disasters. He was a disaster as Attorney-General. He has been a disaster as an adviser to the Government time after time. It is absolutely beyond me. I do not know how he seems to be able to get away with it. I suppose he smiles at them. Anyway, it is beyond me how the Government puts up with him as its adviser on these matters. Why on earth does the Government want to bury this matter forever? The material before us indicates that His Honour will not be with us for much longer. Why does the Government want to bury forever all of the material which has been put before the Commission at this stage? One must ask whether Mr Wran is involved in it. Has it something to do with the Labor Party in New South Wales? This is the sort of thing that people are asking. What is the Government on about? It is not interested. The Petrov case was not sufficiently important. It had to be disclosed. What about matters relating to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? The Government is going to attempt to deny the public access to these matters forever. Let me again refer to the opening words of Sir George Lush, formerly a judge of the Victorian Supreme Court. He said: By Thursday 17 July 1986 counsel assisting the Commission had caused to be delivered to those representing Mr Justice Murphy twelve documents each purporting to set out, a specific allegation of conduct by the Judge . . . That is in accordance with section 5 (2) of the Act. He continues: Two further such documents have since been delivered. So far as we are able to ascertain, at this stage, there are 14 documents, each purporting to set out a specific allegation of conduct to be inquired into. For His Honour to say `I have not done anything wrong, the whole thing should come to and end', is, of course, a nonsense. It is absolute nonsense for the Government to adopt that view, as is disclosed in that first paragraph of the statement to the Speaker and the President by Sir George Lush. Paragraph 5 of the special report by the three members of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry states: The Commission, through counsel assisting it, has considered a great quantity of materials which, in combination with further inquiries, has led to the drafting of `specific allegations made in precise terms' . . . Those completed have been delivered to the Judge. Some are still in preparation. So all of these allegations clearly involve the material which the Commission had in front of it. That material will all be kept secret hereafter. There is great compassion for His Honour because of his illness. I do not deny that that is not unreasonable. But the Government, by its actions, has convicted him, because the presumption will be that he is guilty of these allegations. The Government is trying to hide it. That is precisely the view which will be adopted throughout the country. The Commission has made it perfectly clear that it understood that His Honour was not well. It could surely have been allowed to determine when it ought to report. But it will not be allowed to do that. The Government is stepping in at this stage. I hear Government senators making accusations against me. Let me refer to some of the things that have been said by certain people. Perhaps they might be prepared to listen to the views of these people. Professor Colin Howard, Hearn Professor of Law at Melbourne University-who is, I might say, a person Senator Gareth Evans is frequently prepared to quote in regard to all sorts of constitutional matters-said he could not think of any law which went so far. He warned that it could be seen as a precedent. He stated: As with all concealment of information it will be interpreted in the worst possible light. That is all I am saying: It will be interpreted in the worst possible light. Of course, if the Government does not understand that, it is because, as I said, it has been listening to the ravings of Senator Evans, who does not seem to be able to understand the way in which ordinary people think. Mr George Winterton, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales, has stated that the secrecy provisions were outrageous. Mr John McMillan, a lecturer in law at the Australian National University, has said: It is more than extraordinary, it seems to violate the basic archival principles that when individual reputations are not likely to be affected then the public and historians have a right to survey the material. Of course, he is right. The public and historians have a right to survey the material. So far as the freedom of the Press is concerned, it is absolutely outrageous that the Government should say: `If you dare to publish any of this material, you will suffer these penalties'. We do not know what material is before the Commission of Inquiry. We do not know about the other secret inquiry carried out by Mr Justice Stewart. All of this material may involve other people. Does it mean that if a person is charged with a criminal offence at some future stage, because in some way or other Mr Justice Murphy was associated with the person, that person will not be able to be prosecuted as a result of this legislation being enacted by the Parliament? We do not know what the material contains. We do not know what other people are involved in the matter. It is an absolute disgrace to democratic principles for the Government to bring in such a wide, draconian measure to the effect that all of the material must be buried forever. The attitude of the Australian Democrats is a denial of their name of democrats. Hereafter, how could anyone call them democrats, having regard to the action that apparently they will take today and which I do not understand? Is there to be a precedent so that, if at some stage a person can produce a medical certificate establishing that he has a terminal illness, the Crown will say: `We shall not proceed'? Is there any suggestion that the Crown will say to Trimbole: `You can come home and spend the rest of your years with your loved ones. We shall not prosecute because we understand that you have a terminal illness. You can come home if you can produce a medical certificate'? It is beyond comprehension that the Government should step in in that way. It appears as though the Government has something else that it wants to hide or as though the Cabinet has been led by Senator Gareth Evans. From the word go, he has totally opposed any sort of investigation. Any other Attorney-General of the Commonwealth would have stepped in immediately and taken action as soon as the so-called Age tapes were revealed; but not Senator Gareth Evans. He has opposed any action that might bring out any of the facts. He has opposed taking action at every step on the way. It seems that he must have led Cabinet down the stupid path which it has taken on this evidence. It is not fair to His Honour Mr Justice Murphy that the Commission of Inquiry is not to be allowed to go on investigating as far as it can. People will believe that the Government, by taking the action which it has taken has convicted His Honour in respect of some vague allegations but they will not really know what the allegations are. People have said to me: `Mr Justice Murphy must have committed some terrible criminal offence for you to act in this way'. I have said: `Not at all'. As far as I am aware, for example, it is not a criminal offence for him to approach a judge to ask for an early trial for a friend. But is it the proper action of a High Court judge? The Opposition has not been talking about criminal offences. But the perception of the people is that Mr Justice Murphy must have done something terrible and committed a criminal offence. The issue will be hushed up. Rumours will fly and 99 per cent will be wrong. It will all be covered up and hidden and the real situation will not be revealed to the public. The steps that the Government has taken by introducing this legislation are disastrous. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.53) —The Opposition is totally opposed to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill. In the name of protecting an individual's reputation, the Bill poses a very great assault on Parliament's privileges and the freedom of the Press, an assault which would do justice to some Third World dictatorship but which represents a total disgrace in any supposedly free society. The Bill is part of the culmination of a campaign that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has been running for years, predicated upon the necessity to bury the evidence of the Age tapes beyond public scrutiny and the pursuit of justice. We have seen from the former Attorney-General a consistent attack on the Age tapes and a consistent attempt to deny that they exist, are authentic, have meant anything or led anywhere-a campaign which he has vigorously pursued. When anyone has got in the way and when Mr Justice Athol Moffitt or anyone else has commented, Senator Gareth Evans has been the first to attack. The beneficiary of this legislation, if passed in this form, will be not His Honour Mr Justice Murphy but all the grotty `little mates' in New South Wales, all the little spivs and shysters in the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales and all the criminals in New South Wales who receive under this legislation protection from disclosure of evidence which should be pursued. This motive cannot be said to be absent in view of the way in which the Government is proceeding with this shabby legislation. If anything, it exposes the Government's hypocrisy and the role of the Minister in charge of this legislation. In the same week in which the former Attorney-General complained and grizzled about the potential withdrawal of the so-called Bill of Rights, he has introduced a piece of legislation which, in terms of its assaults on Parliament's rights, on the right of people to see that justice is done and on the rights of a free Press, constitutes the gravest attempt to traduce rights that this Parliament has ever seen. The former Attorney-General has been given support by the Australian Democrats. Senator Haines participated today in this debate in her first major contribution as Leader of the Australian Democrats. If that is to be her standard, she will indeed be like St Simon of Cyrene-condemned to carry the cross for the last few steps. Under that type of leadership and with that type of integrity brought to bear on legislation, once again the Australian Democrats stand exposed not only as the fourth wing of the Labor Party in this chamber but as a group which has no interest in seeing that justice is properly done and that people are properly pursued when they should be. It is not without significance that there is not one member of the Australian Democrats present now or prepared to participate in the rest of the debate. I want to take up a number of matters in the second reading speech and the legislation and to return to a point which I made earlier about the legislation's attempt to cover up a great deal that would cause political embarrassment to the Australian Labor Party. The editorial in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald is headed: Beyond Murphy a cover-up. It states: The Federal Government can be no more proud of its handling of the issues raised by the NSW Police tapes than the NSW Government can of its. Now, against the odds, Canberra has surpassed even that poor record. Whatever the merits of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill, its provisions making it illegal to publish allegations derived from documents gathered by the commission are indefensible. It continues: While the commission was confined to considering Justice Murphy's fitness as a judge, its inquiry inevitably must have confronted broader issues. The editorial concludes: It will be recognised as yet another attempt to delay the full examination of questions concerning the health of basic institutions-the courts and Parliament-in NSW; questions which have demanded answers for almost three years since the NSW Police tapes first came to light. During the whole period, Senator Evans and representatives of the Labor Party in New South Wales have sought to prevent public scrutiny of any of those matters. I turn to the comments in the pathetic second reading speech. We are told that to continue the inquiry would be contrary to established practice and to natural justice. None of us disagrees with that. But what are the other principles of natural justice? One of them is that, when a criminal offence is disclosed and someone else is named in a situation that could lead to action being taken against him, the Government should not seek by legislation to suppress that material and prevent justice taking its course in relation to other persons. That is the effect of this legislation. It goes on to say, quite correctly, that the Commission is not able to make any finding. That is fair enough, it has not been able to make any finding, but it has been able to gather and evaluate evidence which might well be of value to a Director of Public Prosecutions or a National Crime Authority in areas that they should be able to look at. The legislation puts into the hands of the Presiding Officers of this Parliament the power of censorship. The Presiding Officers of this Parliament, persons who, I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, unlike, say, the Speaker of the House of Commons, are persons who are part of the partisan party debate in these chambers, have had placed into their hands the power of censorship, because they are charged by this legislation with making a decision about the release or otherwise of documents. It is not just the current occupants of the respective chairs; if one looks at the amendment to clause 7, circulated on behalf of the Government, one sees that a class A document, even after 30 years, is not to be released except in accordance with the written authority of the Presiding Officers. Even in 30 years time the Presiding Officers of these two chambers will have the power to deny public access to that class A document. What is going to be the situation if at some stage a chamber of the Parliament resolves that documents in the possession of its Presiding Officer are to be presented to it and the Presiding Officer says: `I am constrained by sub-section (6) from giving you that information because ``a person'' is defined to include a House of the Parliament'? In other words, for the first time we have a government attempting by legislation to say to one of the chambers of the freely and democratically elected parliament: `You no longer have the right to require the production of documents which it may be in the public interest to have produced'. No government has ever previously said to a parliament `You do not have the right to obtain and to examine material' because no government has had so much to cover up as this Government has arising from this particular inquiry and this piece of legislation. I will not even attempt to get into the interesting debate about the attempt by Senator Gareth Evans, both in this legislation and in the Budget, to make sure that the Freedom of Information Act 1982 has no impact or effect-and that from a person who waxed so eloquent in this place about the freedom of information and who criticised Senator Durack and honourable senators on this side when in government, but is now part not only of denying access but also of making freedom of information a sick joke under a Labor administration. I come now to the question of what this legislation does in relation to inquiries which are currently under way under State jurisdiction. Presumably under section 109 of the Constitution this will be taken as a piece of legislation overriding State legislation dealing with similar matters or, indeed, with the same matter. State legislation, to the extent that it is in conflict with the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Act, will fall to the ground. In New South Wales material already under investigation by law enforcement authorities touches upon material which is in the hands of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. For instance, evidence given on 15 November 1983 by a Mr Anderson before the select committee of the Legislative Assembly upon prostitution in Sydney related to a number of matters touching upon Morgan Ryan, Mr Sankey and allegations in relation to His Honour Mr Justice Murphy. That material was raised in the House of Representatives on 2 June by Mr Aldred in the debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation legislation. At the end of that debate the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) invited Mr Aldred to submit the material to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry if he thought it was that important, so Mr Aldred did. The matter was sent to the presiding member, Sir George Lush; and the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, knowing that the material was also in the hands of the National Crime Authority, obtained the full details of in camera text relating to this matter. Is this a document, in terms of its part A status, now to be suppressed? If anybody in the media publishes the details of this, are they to be liable for penalty and for prosecution? Why should there be a protection extended to the other persons? Why should the New South Wales police be put in jeopardy for pursuing a matter, having obtained material derived from a document received by the Commission-not a document which the Commission caused to come into being, but a document received by the Commission-when, under the terms of clause 8 of this legislation, the disclosure of that document-created outside the Commission, submitted to the Commission and received by the Commission-is now protected by this shabby piece of legislation? What is to be the case if, for instance, matters laid before the Commission touch upon the national security of this country? What is to be the case if there is material before the Commission which touches upon Mr Justice Murphy's fitness to hold office by relating questions about the 1973 ASIO raid which might touch upon issues of real national security? Are those documents to be suppressed? Of course they are; and for what purpose, one may well ask. They are to be suppressed, even after the expiry of the 30-year rule, if one of the Presiding Officers so determines. The effect of this legislation extends primarily to the protection of those who were on the other end of the telephone. If the allegations relating to the Greek conspiracy case, to Don Thomas, to the Sala case, to the New South Wales police tapes and to the Age tapes have been laid before the Commission of Inquiry, the people involved in those matters are going to be given protection under this legislation. I put it to honourable senators that this legislation has been introduced in this form for no purpose other than to suppress information. Had the Government fundamentally been concerned with the rights and privileges of His Honour Mr Justice Murphy, as it should have been, it could have terminated the inquiry. It would not have found massive opposition to the termination of the inquiry per se and it could have looked sensibly at what to do with the material. It could have said, for instance: `Let the material be sent to the National Crime Authority and let the National Crime Authority determine whether there is any- thing which it should pursue'. The Government could have said that it could be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has been traduced in this place by Senator Gareth Evans over the Murphy issue, clearly could have asked whether he was in a position to pursue further investigations in the matter. We have a whole series of blanket exemptions put into this legislation. His Honour Mr Justice Murphy, who is deserving of the personal sympathy of all members of this Parliament for his personal predicament, will not be the only beneficiary of this exemption; he is being used shamefully by Senator Gareth Evans in order to extend a blanket protection from the proper operations of investigation and the laws in a way that tonight will cause many a champagne cork to pop in the organised crime syndicates around the city of Sydney. This whole exercise undertaken by the Government has to be seen in precisely that fashion. Not only does it traduce the rights of the Parliament to obtain material, not only does it make the Presiding Officers of the Parliament censors of material, not only does it extend the most extraordinary draconian penalties against the free publication of information, but it goes to the extent, I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, of making it a virtual impossibility actually to maintain the structure which is proposed. For instance, if any of the material comes into the hands of a member of parliament and he discloses it under privilege, can the Government take any action? No. If that disclosure made under privilege is reported in the newspapers, can the Government take any action? Maybe it can, but at least there will be some fine arguments about the qualified privilege of the media in reporting matters which are raised in the Parliament. How are the Government and the prosecution-the Crown-going to prove that material which is in the public domain has been derived `from a document received, obtained or prepared, or information received or obtained by the Commission, the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission' when, after all, it is going to be virtually impossible to prove under this legislation what material it is that the Commission holds anyway? How are they going to prove any mens rea or that that was derived from that source? I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this is a nightmare piece of legislation because in seeking to do one thing, namely to extend a proper administration of justice in the case of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy, it has in fact done a great deal more. I put it to you that it has done a great deal more because it has been the consistent policy of the Labor Party in government federally, of the Labor Party in government in New South Wales and of Senator Gareth Evans in particular to make sure that certain information never becomes public. This is the purport of the Bill, going further than simply winding up the Commission of Inquiry and ensuring that the papers, the documents and material in the possession of that Commission are effectively used in relation to persons other than Mr Justice Murphy to ensure that natural justice and, indeed, justice in any form is properly done and properly rendered to the rest of the Australian community. It is for those reasons that the Opposition is totally opposed to this piece of legislation, to this attempt to ensure that there is not full and open public debate on issues of public significance, and why this will stand as yet another monument to the way in which Senator Evans and the Government of which he is a member are unprepared to tackle the issue of organised crime and are prepared to do everything to protect their grubby little mates in New South Wales. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.14) —I rise to support the Opposition in its total opposition to this most draconian legislation that is before us today. At the outset I would like to say that I regret very much the state of health that Mr Justice Murphy finds himself in-- Senator Gareth Evans —More crocodile tears. Senator MacGIBBON —Oh, just shut up. My own father died of carcinoma of the colon and I was with him for every day over a period which extended for nearly a year. It is an affliction that I would not want to wish on anyone. The state of health that Mr Justice Murphy suffers from is something that is quite different from the matter of the probity of Mr Justice Murphy's name and his integrity as a member of the High Court of Australia. Those two issues are quite divorced and quite separate. In the parliamentary traditions that we observe we recognise the difference, indeed the total separation, between the legislature and he judiciary. We who make the laws do not interpret them. We do not administer justice. That is a principle to which we hold very strongly. At the same time, as legislators we must be vitally concerned with the quality of the administration of justice; with the integrity of the courts. It is absolutely fundamental to our existence here as a parliamentary democracy. If we, as legislators, are not concerned about the quality of the courts, their integrity and their freedom from suspicion in any way at all we might as well give up and hand over to some dictatorial regime. Mr Justice Murphy must be allowed the opportunity to clear his name. He must be allowed that from a personal point of view. But more than that, for the institution of the courts of Australia he must be granted the opportunity to clear his name. We have this action of the Government today bringing in this Bill, the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill, as part of a series of quite bizarre and extraordinary actions. We have the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) at the other end of the building and the Ministry behind him arguing that on the one hand Mr Justice Murphy is too sick to appear before the Commission of Inquiry, and therefore he should be excused. I think that is a relevant and pertinent argument. Yet at the same time they are defending his right to sit on the High Court. Those two assertions are contradictory; they cannot be argued together. I think there are good medical grounds why Mr Justice Murphy should not be sitting on the High Court. When someone is in the state of health he is in we cannot overrule the possibility that his judgment is affected. A human being is naturally preoccupied with his state of health when he knows that he has a terminal illness, as Mr Justice Murphy has, and I think there is a very good argument to be made that to deal with the matters of intellectual complexity that come before the High Court is beyond someone who knows that he will die possibly in a month or two. The other problem with Mr Justice Murphy sitting on the Bench is the fact that he is probably under some sort of medication. Those of us who have operated in the medical and pharmacological fields know that the unpredictability of medication is well established. Studies have been made in history of the state of health of political leaders and the way it has affected their judgment. I believe there are good and solid reasons why Mr Justice Murphy should not be sitting on the High Court at the present time. But we have a Government that argues that it is quite proper for him to be sitting on the High Court; yet he is not well enough to appear before a commission. Far more serious than that is the way in which Mr Justice Murphy attacked the Chief Justice in a public statement some weeks ago. That was a grossly unethical and unprofessional statement by Mr Justice Murphy. But the really scandalous thing was the way the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia was left isolated and alone by the people who should have defended him-the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans and other people in the Ministry. That portrayed a fundamental contempt for the rule of law that they profess to live under. Neither Mr Justice Murphy nor the Government by that action is entitled to our respect. They showed that they have nothing but contempt for the institution of the court in Australia. We have in the Chief Justice a person of impeccable character and probity. We have a man who is fully conscious of the high office he holds; yet he was left alone, isolated and unsupported when the very roots of his professional reputation were attacked by Mr Justice Murphy. Looking at the legislation, we come to this extraordinary clause 8. We in this chamber have listened to endless diatribes on human rights by members of the Labor Party. Legislation which strips human rights from ordinary Australians has never before been moved through this Parliament. This takes away their rights and privileges because in clause 8 it takes the right of free speech away from them. Senator Puplick in his brilliant speech quoted from the Sydney Morning Herald editorial today. I will not repeat it, but editorials around Australia all virulently attack the Government on this move. I quote from the Hobart Mercury. Part of its editorial today, Thursday, 21 August, states: The Government is seeking a degree of secrecy now not even accorded events which occurred during war time which cast national and military leaders in roles they would perhaps prefer to have avoided. Because of this the Government's actions are scandalous. The action of the Government is scandalous in trying to suppress the information already before the Commission and in bringing in draconian penalties for anyone in the Press or the public who comments on them in the future. This really is the action of a Third World country, a banana republic. Since we have a Treasurer who comes from a banana republic, I suppose it is fitting that we have an Attorney-General and a Ministry who are of the same kidney. Let us consider the morally bankrupt party, the Australian Democrats. The same day they move a notice of motion to guillotine the Bill of Rights, with all the crocodile tears associated with that, they throw their sycophantic support behind this Bill, which denies any form of human rights. The Commission of Inquiry goes to the heart of the probity and integrity of public administration in Australia. We have the very sinister feature of the Government coming in to suppress any comment that ordinary law-abiding citizens might make. I could understand, sympathise and support a government move to spare Mr Justice Murphy any mental duress in the final months of his life. If the Government wishes to protect Mr Justice Murphy in any way, I would support that; but in linking the legislation to free Mr Justice Murphy from the Commission of Inquiry with this draconian legislation to try to cover up all the scandals in public administration that are running through the community the Government has linked two unlinkable factors. Why is the Government doing this? It cannot succeed, as Senator Lewis, Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Puplick said. The Government will never be able to sustain the suppression of truth. This Government began by castrating the National Crime Authority. The Government turned it into a joke-an ineffectual organisation. Today we have the suppression of any information that has come before the Commission of Inquiry into Mr Justice Murphy. What will we have next week? Those opposite cannot keep plugging the holes when the tank is leaking as it is at present. The Government is not concerned primarily with protecting Mr Justice Murphy. It is concerned with the people who have been associated with him and with the Australian Labor Party and about whom evidence has been given before the Commission. This Bill ought to be withdrawn. We ought to let the laws of this country, which are perfectly adequate to deal with this situation, run their course. By so doing, truth and justice will prevail. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.24) —Allegations about Mr Justice Murphy started long before I entered this chamber. The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill 1986 effectively seeks to repeal the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. The Bill to set up the inquiry was passed only in the last parliamentary session. Even those of us without long memories can recall the fiasco last session on what would happen to Mr Justice Murphy. Finally, the Government caved in, did what it should have done in the first place, and established this inquiry. But it did not give in willingly. Only after considerable time and considerable pressure was the Commission established. Many people around Australia saw the Commission as providing an opportunity to do two things: To settle the mystery that had surrounded Mr Justice Murphy and the allegations that some people had made; and to restore confidence in the High Court of Australia. We thought we could look forward to those two things happening if this Commission were able to run its full term and present Parliament with its findings. What has happened since last session is very regrettable. As the second reading speech points out, Mr Justice Murphy is in a most regrettable position. He has a terminal illness which, in the absence of remission, will mean that he will not live very long. That is regrettable, but there is nothing we can do about that. We now see the Government seeking to take the opportunity to use that accident of history, if you like, to lock away the consequences of the material before the Commission. We heard a contribution this morning from Senator Haines, the newly elected leader of the Australian Democrats. In the brief time that I have been in this Parliament it is the most disgraceful contribution I have heard. Senator Haines basically said two things. First, she said, in effect, that she did not care whether all this material was burnt or shredded. As far as she was concerned, that could easily happen and she would not bat an eyelid. Senator Teague —Irresponsible. Senator VANSTONE —That was an irresponsible and disgraceful contribution by Senator Haines. The reason she offered for this disgraceful point of view was that, to use my words, all the material could be thrown in the bin because as far as the Australian Democrats were concerned they had not agreed with the establishment of a commission of inquiry in the first place. By taking the line that all the material could be chucked in the bin because the Democrats did not think the Commission should have been set up in the first place, Senator Haines is saying that if one does not like the course of history and if one has the opportunity to erase the facts of history one should take that opportunity-just as Tricky Dickie Nixon supposedly did with the tapes. If one has the opportunity to wipe something from the record or lock it away, that is what one should do. Senator Haines now stands as the new queen of newspeak, as outlined in Orwell's 1984-a couple of years too late but nonetheless so. That is exactly what Senator Haines is saying. The Democrats did not want the Commission in the first place. So as far as they are concerned all the material can be locked away. That ignores a number of matters. Firstly, it ignores the special report of which we have the benefit, and particularly the first paragraph of the report in which the three judges indicate that they found 14 allegations they would deal with which had been presented to the judge. Those were not simply 14 rumours or scandal-mongering snippets of information dragged up from the gutter, which is what Senator Haines would have us believe, but 14 specific allegations that had been formulated by three eminent legal personalities. The contribution from the Democrats seeks to ignore that. They would like to believe that it has not happened and that it can be disposed of. Secondly, Senator Haines's disgraceful contribution, in addition to ignoring the report of which we now have the benefit, seems to ignore completely the needs of historians and future parliamentarians. Thirdly, it ignores the value most Australians put on the High Court and their desire to have this Murphy mystery resolved. It will not be resolved by following the Government's proposed course of action. To lock the information away from the eyes of future parliamentarians and historians is an attempt to doctor history in a time-warped sort of way and thereby to undermine the integrity of some of our institutions. It is not a satisfactory course of action and it is one that each of us, to the greatest extent possible, should ensure does not proceed. Some points made in the debate this morning bear repeating. In my view the first point which bears repeating is that Justice Lionel Murphy should be treated in the same manner as every other citizen who finds himself in this position. He should have the same rights and responsibilities, and no more. No explanation has been offered, that I have heard, that justifies this information, effectively, being locked away. As has been pointed out, if the course of Mr Justice Murphy's regrettable illness is a brief one, the situation of the libel laws will change and there will be no protection for him. So one has to ask, as other speakers have: Who will be protected by this information being locked away? If we accept that Mr Justice Murphy's illness is terminal and that the libel laws will then be free, one has to ask: Who will be protected? That has not been answered, and it should be answered. Another point I wish to make is in respect of Mr Justice Murphy's illness. As the second reading speech says, in the absence of a remission he will not live very long. One then wonders, given the second reading speech makes it quite clear that there is the possibility of remission, what the Government will do if Mr Justice Murphy is one of the very few-there are such people alive today, very lucky people-who find themselves the beneficiaries of a substantial remission. If this Bill is passed we will have crossed a bridge and it will be very difficult to return. I would like to hear a response from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) as to why the Commission cannot continue and decide for itself when it has exhausted all possible opportunities of reporting to this Parliament. A further point I would like to make is that some of the speakers in this debate-particularly people in the Press-would like to portray the Commission's continuing as the pursuit of a dying man and an attempt to darken further his reputation. I disagree with that version of the facts and I believe that it should be looked upon as a pursuit to unravel a mystery. The mystery has darkened his reputation and in my view has darkened the reputation of the High Court of Australia. Therefore, we should be doing everything we can to ensure that Mr Justice Murphy's name is cleared and that the reputation of the High Court is restored to what it was before this ugly business reared its head. One of the most important things we should be considering is the restriction that this Bill places on the primary source material for future historians. Surely the Democrats would not advocate, for example, politicians and historians of today not having access to the Warren Commission material for the Kennedy assassination. One could go on and give further examples of where matters have been resolved years and years down the track. Obviously this matter will not be resolved now, but locking the information away prevents the resolution at a later time. Senator Evans would do well to advise the chamber of whether he would have advocated that files and evidence relating to the British nuclear tests should have been suppressed and destroyed by previous governments. That is similar to what the Government is now attempting to do with respect to the Commission of Inquiry. I conclude by saying that as a South Australian I regret the disgraceful contribution made this morning by Senator Haines. I agree with Senator Sir John Carrick that for the Democrats to continue to say that they are here to keep the bastards honest is nothing less than a joke. The cartoon in the Canberra Times this morning was very amusing. It does not relate to this matter, I know, but it gives an indication of the views people are beginning to hold of the Democrats. They are beginning to see them for exactly what they are, the greatest bunch of opportunists that this Parliament has ever seen. I repeat that as a South Australian I am ashamed of the contribution Senator Haines made. In my view it shows no respect for Mr Justice Murphy and for the opportunity he may have to clear his reputation. It shows no respect for the High Court and the restoration of its reputation. I dissociate myself completely from any remarks Senator Haines may have made and associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.36) —As an ex-journalist I am particularly concerned about the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Bill. It seems to me that particular clauses of the Bill have some inhibiting factors on the capacity of some matters to be raised in the future, matters which need not necessarily impinge on the status or the standing of Mr Justice Murphy. The matter that particularly concerns me is a matter to which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) addressed himself in the other place last night. He said that there was a capacity for people who had made submissions to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to get those submissions back from the Commission, and in that way refer them themselves to any other law enforcement agencies or any other such bodies. Senator Gareth Evans —Yes. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I notice that the Minister representing the Attorney-General says yes. This appears to solve part of the problem to which some people have been addressing themselves today. However, what concerns me is that if the Commission ceases to exist after the passage of this legislation, how can this material be handed back to the people by the Commission when the Commission is not there? That seems to me to be an insuperable problem unless Opposition amendments relating to the continuation of the Commission for certain purposes should proceed. It is evident that this sort of problem will continue. Mr Lionel Bowen addressed himself to this problem at some length on page 298 of yesterday's House of Representatives Hansard. He said: . . . if a request were made the material would be handed back. He further said: Does the honourable member think the Commission would not have done that- that is, convey the information to appropriate authorities- or would not do it even now if that were the position? But the point is the Commission will not have the capacity to hand it on. Senator Gareth Evans —If you give me five minutes before the break I will answer these questions fully, right now. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is all very well. The clear point is that the Attorney-General has made statements-- Senator Gareth Evans —And they are right. The Commission fully intends to hand back every document submitted to it by the individual to that individual or agency under section 18 (2) of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act. It will do so before the Commission's authority ceases, before this repeal Bill is assented to. Equally, the Commission proposes, under section 34 (2), to give to appropriate law enforcement agencies any material of a kind which is colourable and which has attracted so much attention this morning. The Government will allow it the capacity to do so. There has been so much misconstruction of the legislation. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —This is absolutely incredible. At this stage of the debate Government members have had opportunities to participate, to clarify things and to give assurances that this Senate should have received before we debated this matter. It is a matter of major moment, a matter not properly addressed in Mr Lionel Bowen's response last night. He made a general position without the assurance that the Minister has now given by way of interjection rather than by way of substantive statement in the other place. We have been treated with contempt by this Government. Yesterday, the Government sought to railroad this through, in as brief a time as possible, so that matters such as this would not be properly debated. It was a deliberate attempt by this Government to misdirect this place, and not to give us the opportunity in a second reading debate to reply to these particular matters. It is absolutely disgraceful that by way of interjection the Minister for Resources and Energy has now provided what he claims is a total and substantive response to a matter which, I must say, I hope we will have the opportunity to deal with at some length subsequently. This displays the approach of the Government to the whole matter. There is a suggestion by way of interjection that in fact the points being made by the Opposition have no substance. I do not in fact believe that there is anything in the legislation which supports the Minister's proposition. If the Minister is simply giving his personal undertaking-without any comment on him-I need to say only that the Senate should not be prepared to accept, on the basis of that personal undertaking, which I understand he has given, an assurance on a matter of major substance relating to the legislation and for which there is no statement in writing and no amendment. It seems to me incredible that the Minister could hope to get away with this style of management in regard to a matter of such immense significance. Senator Newman —It is not being broadcast. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It may well be, as the honourable senator has said, that because the proceedings are not being broadcast today the Minister thinks he can get away with this kind of rubbish. The reality is that amendments have been formulated by the Opposition because it is seeking to make certain that this kind of situation, about which it is concerned, cannot obtain. Of course, that is another reason why the amendments are so absolutely vital. We simply cannot rely on an interjected assurance by the Minister. As I had started to say before this incredible interlude, as an ex-journalist I am absolutely appalled at the attempts, which now appear to be unnecessary in the legislation, to impose enormous penalties and burdens on journalists and any other element of the media that seek to reveal matters that clearly are matters of major substance-matters not simply affecting the standing or status of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. I must say that I have the greatest feelings of sympathy for Mr Justice Lionel Murphy, with whom, I might also say, I enjoyed a very friendly personal relationship some 20 to 25 years ago when we were both members of a dining club at university. Senator Grimes —Sanctimonious fool! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Minister for that interjection. I am overjoyed to have it recorded. The only response to matters of major significance in this place is that kind of personal abuse by a Minister whose own standing cannot bear thorough examination in this place and whose intention it is to scurry from the Senate as soon as possible. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —Order! I ask the honourable senator to direct his remarks through the Chair. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr Acting Deputy President, I was addressing you. I was saying that the Minister seeks to scurry from this Senate because in fact the heat in the kitchen is too great. Senator Coleman —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order-- Senator MICHAEL BAUME —What is the point of order? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I ask Senator Baume to continue. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. What concerns me are the attempts to censor the media, in particular, and to impose incredible penalties on the media for releasing information which, as I say, need not necessarily bear any relevance at all to the standing or status of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy but which may be very solidly indeed on the level of corruption in the State of New South Wales-a level of corruption with which it appears from much evidence, printed and other, and certainly on various tapes, that the New South Wales machine of the Australian Labor Party is very closely involved. Senator Grimes —Where were you in the Askin years? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I think that there are three clear concerns which we can examine. Why on earth, if in fact there is no problem- Senator Grimes —Where were you in the Askin years, with your colleague next to you? What party were you in? What were you doing about it? You were doing nothing all those years. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I must say, Mr Acting Deputy President, that I hope that those interjections are being recorded in Hansard and that they serve to reveal the nature of the Minister for Community Services, who is at the table. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by Senators, provided that no Senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.45) —Mr Acting Deputy President, after the conclusion of tomorrow's sitting the two Houses of this Parliament will be in recess for three weeks. This is unprecedented, as I understand it. The reason, I think, ought to be clearly stated. It is normal when a Budget has been brought down, and more urgently so because of the nature of this Budget, that the two Houses of Parliament should meet to debate in detail the Budget and its nature and to expose its aspects to the people of Australia. So frightened is the Government of the nature of this Budget that, in fact, it has deliberately closed down the Parliament for three weeks. Let it be understood that the measure of its mistrust in this Budget is the recess that will follow. The right place to deal with money matters, the right place to deal with Budgets, is in this Parliament; that is the purpose for which it exists. It is no good the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the somewhat soiled Treasurer (Mr Keating) now saying that they are going out to sell it to the public. Their first duty is to explain the Budget to this Parliament and to stand up and be counted. On that point I want to take some time of the Senate at this lunchtime since we are not to be allowed to do so in the three weeks ahead. The public must come to understand that an enormous confidence trick has been played upon them. For three years, day after day, week after week, the Hawke Government and all its Ministers told the public that things were getting better, that indeed they had never had it better, that the Hawke Government had the whole of the economy under control and the economy was getting stronger. Then, by an inadvertent remark of the Treasurer that we were approaching a banana republic, a series of chain events happened. Those chain events happened day by day by day revealing that everything that the Government had said in the past by way of confidence in the economy was wrong, that the economy was in fact moving towards that of a banana republic; that, in fact, the living standards of the people of Australia were falling and would continue to fall. Against that background a sudden change of tune occurred with the Government and the people of Australia were told that they would have to have a Budget which would be harsh and the effect of which would be to move to restore the economy. I want to point out what has happened with this Budget. The fact is that the Government has said that the cause of all this recession is off-shore, it is overseas, it is due to the relationship of our balance of trade; and indeed our trade has fallen 3 per cent in real terms and therefore the living standards of the Australian people must fall in real terms that way. That, in itself, is a confidence trick because the balance of trade is brought about by the residue as between exports and imports-the money earned by exports and the costs of imports. Under this Government, imports in volume and cost have risen day by day. Australia has been flooded with imports to the great detriment of our ordinary working people because the imports have provided employment opportunities for people overseas to the detriment of the 8 or 9 per cent of the unemployed in Australia, and particularly the young. Steadily over the years of this Government employment in manufacturing has fallen year by year. Investment has fallen year by year and therefore the opportunity to bring about import replacement has disappeared and the jobs for our young have fallen. So that the truth of the matter does not lie with-- Senator Coleman —That is a load of rubbish and you know it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I suggest you go back to Robe River and look at the load of rubbish there. Senator Coleman has interjected that it is a load of rubbish to say that in fact imports have risen over recent years, that investment has fallen in manufacturing, that in fact the numbers of people in manufacturing have fallen. They are the things that I have said and they have fallen steadily over the years. Senator Coleman —Where did they fall? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let me tell you why they fell. I am delighted to be asked that. I have the figures here so I am glad to be able to tell why, in fact, manufacturing fell, because it was a very spectacular period. In that period of 18 months beginning in 1973 under Mr Hawke as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and under the Whitlam Labor Party wages rose in Australia a record 37 per cent, and 52 per cent in the three-year period. A cut in tariffs occurred of 25 per cent and in one year 110,000 people went out of manufacturing. That started the real run, the real drain in manufacturing. Now, do we say rubbish or should I incorporate these figures? Senator Grimes —Come on, tell us about 1981-82. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Thank you very much. The Minister asks about 1981 and 1982. I will give these figures because they are very interesting indeed. In the three years of the McMahon Government average weekly earnings rose 30.5 per cent. In the three subsequent years of the Whitlam Government they rose 55.2 per cent. In the next three years of the Fraser Government they dropped back to 30.7 per cent, a fall from 50 per cent, and then a man named Hawke, as the President of the ACTU, talked up a massive wage rise in 1981-82 as he did before. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —Order! I remind the honourable senator that this is a non-controversial debate. I ask that the interjections on my right cease and remind the Senate that it is a non-controversial debate. Senator Grimes —On a point of order: It was intended to be a non-controversial debate. There was that intention when these new sitting hours were first set. However, that has gone by the board, I am afraid. You are not aware of that. It is a time for debate of matters of special interest. People can raise whatever matters they like. The non-controversial nature of the debate was, of course, upheld always by people on this side but it has gone by the board since people on that side decided that that was not sufficient. Senator Chaney —The expression `non-controversial' has been totally misrepresented in this place. The position was that there was agreement that there should be debate which would not give rise to divisions or quorums. The term `non-controversial', certainly in the understanding of the Opposition, was that it was debate that would not lead to senators who were availing themselves of the lunch time for the civilised practice of having some lunch being brought back to the chamber by the bells ringing. It was never the view of the Opposition that this debate could not be on very contentious matters like nuclear disarmament and many others. I do not wish to take Senator Sir John Carrick's time and I am sorry for eating into it but I think the record should be clear on that. As far as the Opposition is concerned any matter can be debated. We should not take action which would lead to a division. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Chair accepts the explanation by the Manager of Government Business and the Leader of the Opposition. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I was attempting to say that it was a disgraceful thing that the Government should lift the Houses of Parliament in the three weeks immediately following the Budget and therefore prevent a discussion on the Budget in that time. I am taking, as is my absolute right, this time to discuss that. I want to point out that the Government has said that the country is in recession and living standards have fallen; therefore we must have a hard Budget. What has happened is extraordinary. We have heard why we have got to have it and now we look at the Budget to see what it contains. The Budget, in fact, says that the balance of trade will be as bad at the end of the financial year as at the beginning so there will be no improvement on the salient facts. The Budget says that business investment will fall so that things will get worse. The Budget says that primary industry will get lower prices and probably more difficulty in getting volumes so that it will be worse off. The Budget says that unemployment will rise over the course of this year and uses an exchange rate figure of 52c to indicate for its costing of all its figures what it says the exchange rate will be through the year. The Government, having said that it must do everything to stop this declining exchange rate and, presumably, to improve it, has put in a figure that is at its present lowest depths; and it has predicated for the rest of this year that the exchange rate will be judged by the people of the world at its present miserable level or, indeed, worse. These are facts. They are not controversial. I am using the Budget Papers. The Budget itself does a lot of pretence in that regard. It says it is giving a one per cent real increase in expenditure to the Defence Department, and then shows that by the impact of the fringe benefits tax and the impact of the exchange the real purchasing power of the Defence Department will be less. So one must look very hard at it. The Budget says we have to do a number of things. We have to lower living standards, and certainly that is demonstrable, and we have therefore to increase taxes. It is the highest taxing Budget on record, with the highest taxing Treasurer on record. It has done a number of absolute confidence tricks. It has slid the tax cuts for three months to December and has slid the pension rises for six weeks; that helps it to get an improved final deficit. But the fact is that it cannot slide that past the next Budget and what it is building up will be quite an impossibility in the next Budget. The tax cuts and the pension rises will all be part of the then cost situation. I rose because I wanted to point out first of all that the basic flaw in the Government's argument that the balance of trade on the falling export prices of primary products and minerals was the fundamental factor. I wanted to point out the importance of the fact that our internal cost structure is such that we cannot, in fact, compete overseas and because that cost structure is so high we are losing jobs in the whole of our employment range, particularly amongst our young. The truth is that under this Government costs of production have been indexed to be uncompetitive deliberately with the rest of the trading partners of the world. In other words, by indexing wages and inflation we have maintained the gap between the competitiveness of our opponents and ourselves and that has gone on. We are coming in this Budget to another situation where inflation, which the Government said would be reduced, is going to remain as high, or higher. The Government is very good at blaming others, and particularly former governments. It is well to remind this Senate, Mr Acting Deputy President, that in the last year of the Whitlam Government inflation was, on statutory consumer price index figures, 17 1/2 per cent, running to 20 per cent. It was halved over a period by the Fraser Government. It is now on the rise again. The figures that are shown in the Budget, of course, take no account of the huge extra taxes that are going to be imposed by the States and local governments on the people. So that pensioners, fixed income people and lower income people have to pay. It would be good if in fact the sacrifice were worth while, but it is important to understand that the Budget says that at the end of this financial year things will be worse than at the beginning. We will do all these kinds of things, all this cost cutting and saving, all this extra taxing, and we will find that inflation will be as high or higher. Unemployment will be substantially higher. Primary industry will be worse off. Our trade will still be in grave imbalance and yet we will have paid the sacrifice that has been asked in the Budget. The sacrifice is important and it should be shared, but at least it ought to be directed towards a goal. Today I have used the Government's figures and the Government has condemned itself in its own Budget Papers. It has said, in fact, that things will be worse after this Budget is implemented. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(1.00) —I want to refer briefly to the specific disadvantages that the Illawarra region in general and the city of Wollongong in particular appear to be suffering as a result of this Budget. I am not getting up here to say that there should not have been expenditure cuts in the Budget; on the contrary my strong view is that the expenditure cuts were totally inadequate to cope with the disaster which is now befalling the Australian economy largely as a result of incredible and inappropriate governmental policies. The Budget we are now seeing should have been, at least in outline, introduced at least a year ago, but, of course, that is only an outline because in specifics it simply is not doing, as my friend and colleague Senator Sir John Carrick said, the job which is needed. Nonetheless, when one looks at what is being done one sees an extraordinary emphasis on hitting areas such as Wollongong which are already severely depressed, largely as a result of governmental policies so far. In particular, for example, there is the decision to close the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This is despite the fact that there is something like a 30 per cent migrant content in the population of the Illawarra region and despite the fact that there were something like 25,000 telephone inquiries and about 20,000 office inquiries of the Department in Wollongong last year. Something like 500 new arrivals came to Wollongong last year and with an office staff of something like 10 permanent officers servicing this enormous region with this very, very large migrant population requiring services, it does seem to be extraordinary that the Government should have made this decision if in fact there is no significant saving of expenditure involved. This is the issue, because one will need to be convinced that there is any saving whatsoever in this mean-minded decision to close the Wollongong office of the Immigration Department. It is evident, of course, if there is any burden on the Government, that it will transfer that burden to the people of the Illawarra region who need the services of the Immigration Department. It is clear that for the Government to justify this quaint decision it will have to establish what are the gross and net savings; that is, after taking into account costs of servicing from Sydney the 62,000 migrants who live in the Wollongong area. We will want to know what are the gross and net savings involved in closing the office; and not simply in a full year, but what the cost savings will be this year. This is supposed to be the crisis year. This is the year we are in the bunker because it is war-like, according to the Prime Minister. What savings will there be this year? Of course, in making its announcement the Government ducked the issue. It did not say what the savings would be this year, let alone in a full year. I have been advised that under the criteria applied by the Department this office is described as cost-efficient. I would like to know from the Government-and I think the Government has a duty to tell the people of Wollongong, who are so consistently misled on this matter and so many other matters-whether or not this office would have made a profit in the current financial year because its services to the public are, in fact, all chargeable. Fees are paid by the public for the services provided by the Immigration Department. If this office was in fact going to make a profit it would be very interesting to see how the Government justifies closing it. I wonder what the figures really are. It would be a good idea if the Government came clean. No doubt the Government's attitude to Wollongong is, as the seats in and around it are safe for Labor, that it does not have to worry about looking after the people of Wollongong or making justifications for absurd, unfair and unreasonable decisions adversely affecting that region. I want to know: Will there be any cuts in employment staff levels in the Department as a result of closing this office? What are they, if any? For how long is the lease of the premises it presently occupies? I understand that there is still two years to go of the lease. What is to be the cost, if any, of terminating that lease or will another government instrumentality occupy it? If so, what will be the cost of its giving up whatever other area it had? I go even further. As I understand it, it had been planned that the Department of Immigration would occupy part of the $17m Commonwealth offices that the Government had announced were to be built in Wollongong and expenditure for which was supposed to be undertaken this year. It appears from the fine print of the Budget Papers that that will not proceed. We have seen no announcement, of course. The Government has not `fessed up'. The Government has not had the honesty to tell the people of Wollongong that that office is not proceeding. All that one sees when one looks at the Commonwealth-approved capital works program for 1986-87 is that the Wollongong new Commonwealth offices estimated cost is $17m, unexpended balance at 30 June 1986 is $17m, and estimated expenditure in 1986-87 is nil. That is the way the Government announces that it has deferred its $17m new office program for Wollongong. That shows great honesty and integrity, does it not? There is a great fanfare when it is announced. It goes to water and there is no comment; nothing but a single line in the back pages of a backup document circulated by, of all people, the Hon. Stewart West, Minister for Housing and Construction and the member for Cunningham. He is the member who is supposed to represent Wollongong's best interests. What a brave man! I did not see his Press release announcing this in the Illawarra Mercury today or yesterday. We have a remarkable situation. What is to happen to all those people who are supposed to be moving into this office? If in fact it is not cost-efficient to proceed with building the Wollongong Commonwealth offices, the Government has every right not to proceed. The thing it does not have the right to do is to fudge it, to sneak it through, to pretend it is not happening. I simply wonder whether in fact this building is to proceed. Will the Government in fact say so? Will it tell us when? It might also tell us who is going to occupy the space in it that the Department of Immigration had been to occupy. We also I guess could wonder what on earth is happening to the Commonwealth Police who have been threatened with departure from their offices in Wollongong. The threat of closure has been hanging over them for about four months or so, despite the fact that Port Kembla is clearly a serious area for drugs and for the possible importation of drugs, apart from the questions of social security fraud, immigration fraud and so on, that the Commonwealth Police have to look after. There is a suggestion that in fact it is not cost-efficient to maintain the Commonwealth Police in Wollongong. Let us see the figures. Let us see how cost-efficient it is. This Government is hot and strong on veneer, but very weak on presenting details. We have also got, of course, the farce in Wollongong of the office of the Department of Social Security for which the Government has been paying lease rentals for something like two years; but there is still no Social Security public servant in that office even now. They should have moved in a month or so ago but there is a fight going on. After all the renovations that have been done in that place by the Government, there is a fight going on about whether there is some asbestos in the ceiling. Surely that could have been found out while they were doing the renovations. Overall and generally there is a continuing attack on Wollongong. As to the great steel regions program of assistance to the steel industries, I notice in the details of transport expenditure and revenue that assistance to the steel regions is to be cut in half this year. This may well be-and I must say I am not certain of this year; I have not had a chance to check it-in accordance with the original statements; I am unaware of that. I had not thought that there was to be such a diminution but it certainly is to be cut in half in respect of roads. Roads assistance for steel regions is going down from $1.85m to $982,000. All this adds up, it seems to me, to sneaky attacks on a region which already has some of the worst unemployment in Australia, and which has been subject to non-stop propaganda from the Government about how it is looking after it when in reality the goodies that have been offered to it have subsequently been taken away. I make one final point about buildings: There has been interesting continuation of the works program in places such as the Australian Capital Territory, of course, where Commonwealth offices are proceeding with great enthusiasm. For example, modifications to the Cameron Offices are going on. If one looks through the list one will see enormous volumes of expenditure relating to Commonwealth offices within the Australian Capital Territory. I wonder why the Australian Capital Territory is more deserving of expenditure on Commonwealth offices than an area of major unemployment such as the Illawarra region where there surely would be a greater social cost-benefit than exists in continuing to expand the office situation here or even improving some obviously outdated, outmoded and poor quality offices in Canberra. Senator Reid —I can tell you about the Cameron Offices. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It is important when one can afford it to fix up a lot of these Canberra offices and even to expand them, but if there is a choice between doing something in the Illawarra region with a massive unemployment rate and fixing up Canberra offices-no matter what Senator Reid might say about the appalling nature of some of those offices and I take her point about the Cameron Offices in particular-surely the choice would be to do it where one gets the best social return and that social return is in Wollongong, not in the Australian Capital Territory. One of the reasons we have this enormous pressure in the Australian Capital Territory is the incredible increase in the number of public servants and the consequence of that, it can be seen by looking at the Budget Papers, is the increase in rent being paid by this Government. When the previous Government lost office rentals took up about $100m a year. Rents for Commonwealth buildings have almost trebled under this Government, to $285m. The property management and services division cost $70m under the previous Government; it has now doubled to $145m. The construction of Commonwealth offices or work on them has gone up 94 per cent this year-this great year of restraint-to $90m but, of course, Wollongong does not have a sufficiently high priority to participate in that. Mr Acting Deputy President, I was seeking to illustrate that if the burden is to be shared, as it is according to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), shared throughout Australia, how about getting off Wollongong's back and giving Wollongong a fair go. Sitting suspended from 1.15 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to assurances that he has given that the textile, clothing and footwear plan will continue without alteration until the end of 1988 and that there should not be any dramatic and unduly disruptive reduction in assistance to those industries. I refer also to the Budget decision to cut bounty assistance by 20 per cent across the board, which by any description is a very dramatic reduction in assistance. As the Minister has supported the need for a consistent industry policy and in light of the assurances to which I have referred I ask the Minister: How does he justify the Budget action? Senator BUTTON —The Budget action is justified in terms of the Government's macro- economic policies and the need to reduce outlays. The bounty assistance was cut by 20 per cent across a wide range of industries, based on that fact, and that fact alone. In respect of some industries the benefits of the devaluation have been so significant that the question of bounty assistance had to be assessed in that light, but I would not offer that in any sense as a reason for the decision which was made. It was made on the basis of reducing government outlays and expenditure. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Minister for that answer but I have a supplementary question. As the decision was not made for industry policy reasons, I ask: Will the Minister examine the impact on particular industries to see the extent to which the change will do any serious damage to the industries concerned? That question is asked in light of the significant employment and growth problems that we have at the moment and in light of the fact that this is a broadbrush revenue saving measure which may impact very negatively on some employment sectors. Senator BUTTON —I must say that from an industry policy point of view, as Senator Chaney rightly points out in his question, I have always been concerned about continuity. In some degree this is an interruption of continuity in respect of bounty payments. I am quite happy to undertake an examination of the impact on various sectors. To some extent that has been done already and it is in that light that I-- Senator Chaney —You exempted shipbuilding. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney interjected and said that we exempted shipbuilding. No, we did not. There is a significant reduction, I think, in the shipbuilding bounty overall. There will be a further announcement in relation to the shipbuilding bounty in the not too distant future. Senator ELSTOB —I refer the Minister for Education to the administrative charge which will be payable by all tertiary students and which was announced in the Budget. Will any students be exempt from this charge? Have arrangements been made for institutions to spread the charge over a full year rather than collect it in a lump sum? Senator RYAN —I welcome Senator Elstob's question because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and misinterpretation about the nature and purpose of the charge and the students who will be affected by it. The charge will not be applied to all tertiary students. Technical and further education students, for example, will not pay the charge. Higher education students, that is, students in universities and colleges, will pay the charge. However, there is a very large list of exemptions from the charge, or persons who will not be affected by it. Any student who is in receipt of a tertiary education assistance scheme payment at any level will be compensated for, and will not be affected by, the change. Aboriginal students and overseas students will not be affected by it. Pensioner students will not be affected by the charge if they are on a supporting mother's pension, widow's pension or carer's allowance. It can be seen very clearly that low income, higher education students will not be affected by the charge. So the suggestion which is coming from some organisations and which is being repeated in some parts of the media that the charge of $250 will be an obstacle to low income students represents simply a misunderstanding. Given that all identifiable groups of low income students are to be exempted from the charge, that is simply not true. Those students who will pay the $250 are in a position to do so. However, if students have difficulty paying the charge we have asked institutions to direct them to loans or grants that are available through the special student assistance scheme. Honourable senators may not be aware that by next year we will have put $11m into a student assistance scheme to which every university and college has access. The students may borrow their $250 from that scheme and repay it on terms negotiated with the student committee that operates that scheme. If institutions which have the responsibility for collecting the charge wish to make the charge payable in two or three lots during the year, we will encourage them to do so. So it is very easy for those of us who are serious about understanding this matter to see that it is a low charge, that it is not to be imposed on low income students and that any students who are liable to pay the charge but who have difficulty paying it will easily be able to get a loan or enter some sort of time payment arrangement to assist them in paying what is, after all, a fair and quite modest contribution to the administrative costs of providing higher education in this country. Senator TEAGUE —My question, which also is directed to the Minister for Education, refers to the Budget decision to reintroduce tertiary education fees. Is this not a direct denial of emphatic pre-election undertakings made by the Labor Government and often paraded by the Minister? The Minister should not tell us that for the first time the Government is trying to sustain a distinction between a charge and a fee or between tuition and the administration of tuition. Will not the proposed higher education administration charge shortchange institutions by allowing only $87m in new revenue collections to cover three factors: Firstly, the $77m in new cuts to direct grants on this account; secondly, the cost to institutions of collection, including defaulting and deferred payments; and, thirdly, the requirement for institutions on this account to lift from 2,000 to 3,000 the additional higher education places to be provided? Finally, in light of the relevant legislation that was introduced this week not providing for a pro rata fee for part time students, how does the Minister justify that the same $250 charge is being inflexibly and inequitably required from full time and part time students alike? The PRESIDENT —Before the Minister answers, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the length of their questions. Senator RYAN —Mr President, I am grateful for your drawing the attention of honourable senators to that-not only to the length of Senator Teague's question but also to the total confusion in which it was phrased. Senator Teague may not be able to understand what I have just explained, but the fact is that the charge that is being introduced is not a tuition fee. Let me explain to Senator Teague how that is the case. Firstly, Senator Teague may be aware, as he takes some interest in education matters, that the current States Grants (Tertiary Assistance) Act and associated Acts specifically prohibit the charging of tuition fees by universities. That specific prohibition will remain. There will be no removal of it until the unlikely event of a Liberal government which, of course, we know will immediately set about imposing full-cost tuition fees. But in our case there is no removal of that prohibition. As I have just explained in some detail in answer to Senator Elstob's question, the charge is an administration one. Further-even Senator Teague could be expected to understand this-if any government were to set about charging tuition fees, it would be charging between $6,000 and $14,000 a year because those are the figures that represent the full cost of university and some college of advanced education places. Any attempt to say that there is no difference between a $250 administration charge and a charge of $6,000 or $8,000 or $12,000 a year for a university or college course is simply failing to face up to reality. Senator Teague expresses some concern about the effect of this measure on the institutions. Let me make it quite clear that the institutions will collect the charge and will keep all the revenue they collect. Their grants will be adjusted downwards by 90 per cent so that they will be 10 per cent ahead of where they would have been had there been no charge. In other words, the institutions come out about $9.7m ahead. So there is something in this measure for the institutions. There is something in it for all those students who are doing their Higher School Certificate this year and who wish to get one of the scarce places in higher education. At least an extra 3,000 higher education places will be available next year and revenue from the charge will contribute to that. In addition-I want to make this perfectly clear-the Government will net $57m to revenue. That is the contribution which will be made by this advantaged sector of the community to the cost saving expenditure reduction exercise in which we have been involved. Senator Teague may think it is unfair to ask people who are in the advantaged position of having a higher education place worth $6,000 or $14,000 a year to make such a contribution. We do not think it is unfair. We think it is fair and that is why we have proceeded. But it is a charge. It in no way undermines our position on tuition fees. As Senator Teague would know, institutions themselves have been collecting charges of various kinds from students over the years-union fees, service fees and things of that kind. No one has ever said that they were tuition fees. This charge is in the same sort of category as the fees that institutions have been collecting. The Commonwealth is collecting and disbursing this charge, however, so that we can ensure that it contributes to equity in terms of more places and in terms of a contribution to the cost saving exercise in which this Government has been engaged. Another verification of my claim that the charge is related to administration and not to tuition is that it is being levied on part time and external students as well as full time students. There is quite a degree of administration involved with part time and external students. The degree of enrolment, course advice and so forth that is involved with a part time student is very often equivalent to, or it could even be greater than, that involved with a full time student. The administration costs of part time and full time students are not significantly different and therefore the charge is the same for all of them. Had the fee been, as Senator Teague suggests, a tuition-related fee there would have been a different charge for different courses, but because the charge is related to the administrative effort of enrolling, supervising and placing students in courses and so on it is clearly an administration charge. It will not be levied on low income students and there will be benefits both to institutions and to those students who will get the extra 3,000 places next year. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have drawn the attention of honourable senators to the length of their questions. I draw the same attention to Ministers' responses to those questions. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Has his attention been drawn to statements in the Queensland Press made by Senator Parer in relation to the Moura Widows Fund? Senator Parer claimed that `the Federal Taxation Office had saved the Labor Government embarrassment by making a snap ruling to exempt the Moura Widows Fund from fringe benefits tax'. He further claimed that `Theiss Damper Mitsui would have to pay $115,000 for its relief contributions'. I ask the Minister: Are these statements correct? If not, will the Minister state the true position in relation to advice received from the Australian Taxation Office and the standing of the Moura Widows Fund regarding the fringe benefits tax? Senator WALSH —I have seen a number of such articles. An article headed `Moura Widows Tax Row' appeared in the Brisbane Daily Sun. Another headed `Snap Ruling on Widows Moneys' appeared in the Rockhampton Bulletin, I think it is, another in the Gladstone Observer, and so on. I was very surprised to see them because previously I had regarded Senator Parer as being one of the handful of people in the Liberal Party who had some intellectual integrity and who did not feed false information to the public. In this instance I regret to say that that is precisely what he has done. He has indulged in a cynical exercise of the type in which so many Opposition members have indulged to misinform the public about the fringe benefits tax in a very shady attempt to discredit it. This is one of the worst examples of that sort of activity, I say with some regret. Senator Parer's claim that the Taxation Office had made a snap ruling to exempt the Moura Widows Fund from the fringe benefits tax to save the Government embarrassment is a further indication that he has lost interest in the facts, if not in preserving an element of self-control. Contributions by Theiss Damper Mitsui to the disaster relief fund have never been subject to any fringe benefits tax liability. Senator Chaney —Why not? Tell us why not. Senator WALSH —Because they are not. If this Opposition had any integrity at all it would check things out with the Taxation Office before assorted members of it go public, deliberately feeding misinformation to the public. I am aware of only one comparably bad example which came, I regret, from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. One Peter Couchman asserted on that crummy show the ABC runs, the 7.30 Report, that protective clothing such as boots, goggles and so on provided to workers would be subject to the fringe benefits tax. He was challenged by a former member of my staff after my former staff member checked out the facts and asked where he got the information. Peter Couchman said: `Oh, some bloke in Queensland gave it to me'. He was then asked whether he had checked the information with the Tax Office or with Treasury and he said no. I wondered then why on earth the public should continue to fund completely the public broadcaster which is so bereft of any sort of journalistic ethics or professionalism and which dedicates five minutes of what it regards as one of its flagship programs to spreading disinformation about the fact because it cannot even be bothered checking with the Taxation Office or anybody in authority. So I regret to say that both Senator Parer and the ABC, or at least the people associated with that program, have descended to the level of professionalism which one more commonly associates with the Sydney tabloids. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to Budget Statement No. 2, which states that the 1986-87 Budget estimates have been based on a trade weighted index of 52. On Budget day the trade weighted index was 51.5, so the Budget is based on a slight strengthening of the Australian dollar. Yesterday it closed at 50.5. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that in his Budget Speech the Treasurer forecast inflation at 8 per cent in 1986-87, which is at least four times higher than that of our major trading partners, and that there will be no improvement and perhaps a further worsening in our current account deficit in 1986-87. In view of this, does the trade weighted index estimate of 52 mean that the Government expects a further massive increase in the already record high level of real interest rates? If not, how does the Government expect the value of the Australian dollar to be maintained and what are the implications for the whole Budget strategy if it is not maintained? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask honourable senators again to consider the length of their questions. Senator WALSH —I guess that if anybody associated with the Budget knew for certain where the exchange rate would be three months, six months or 12 months hence and was interested in making a lot of money he would not be in government or the bureaucracy; he would be out there speculating on the dollar. So there is an element of judgment involved. Senator Short said that the trade weighted index was, I think, 51.5 at the time the Budget was delivered or immediately before and later the figure fell a bit. At one stage yesterday it fell quite considerably in what Albert Smith described in today's Australian Financial Review as the post-lunch claret run. It later recovered somewhat. Obviously, only time will tell whether the Budget assumption is correct but I think it is an assumption that the Government was entitled to make if only for this reason: With one exception nobody, either in the money market or in the financial Press such as it is, had predicted a Budget deficit as low as that which was produced nor, as far as I can recall, had anybody predicted zero real growth in outlays. For both of those reasons, which were clearly more stringent than most people who speculate and comment publicly had anticipated, I think the Government was entitled to make the assumptions that it has built into the Budget. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In the light of an extraordinary campaign of deceit and misinformation by the Opposition in recent days, can the Minister inform the Senate what the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy is doing in relation to material passed to it by law enforcement agencies or material which may be of interest to such agencies? Is it the case that informants to the Commission are to be prevented from taking any allegations they wish to make to any law enforcement agency or, if relevant, to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation if security is alleged to be involved and that accordingly, after the winding up of the Commission, such allegations will remain for ever buried? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Standing order 99 refers to questions relating to debates in the current session. Although normally you allow a fair degree of latitude with respect to that standing order, at the moment the Senate is in the middle of a debate and it will shortly, no doubt, be getting a lengthy reply from Senator Evans. I suggest to you that it is an abuse of Question Time to be taking up this matter at this stage. I ask that the question be ruled out of order. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, on the point of order I simply indicate that the question relates, on its face and in fact substantively, to what is happening to the administration of a current Act of Parliament. It may well be an Act of Parliament which is in the process of being repealed by another Bill before the Parliament but what we are talking about is the powers, the capacity and what is happening under a present Act of Parliament. That is unquestionably within Standing Orders quite apart from any flexibility. I know that honourable senators do not want to hear the truth. The PRESIDENT —On the point of order that has been taken by Senator Chaney, I will allow the Minister to respond to the question on the basis that he has put in responding to the point of order. However, before the Minister answers I draw his attention to the fact that the Committee stage of the Bill has yet to take place and he should bear in mind the consequences of what he might say in his answer to the debate that might take place in the Committee stage. Senator GARETH EVANS —Thank you, Mr President. There has been a massive amount of misrepresentation from the Opposition and the Press over the last couple of days about alleged cover-ups of material that may have emerged during the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. Some of that misrepresentation has manifestly been based on an inability to read the plain terms of existing and proposed legislation. Some of it is clearly based on an unwillingness to listen to what the Attorney-General said in the Parliament yesterday on this very question. I suspect most of it has to do with pure malice of the kind that we have seen so often during the whole conduct of this affair. I am not surprised that Senator Chaney should want to stop my speaking on the question. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister representing the Attorney-General has really made it clear in his answer that he is anticipating discussion on an order of the day which we are in the middle of dealing with. He referred to the debate in the other place yesterday on that very Bill. The issues which were raised in this question by the honourable senator from New South Wales were the subject of debate and indeed interjection from Senator Evans just prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch. I think this is clearly a situation in which the Minister is anticipating discussion and he should be ruled out of order and asked to desist. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw attention to the earlier ruling I gave on the matter that the Minister is entitled to refer to the administration of the Parliamentary Commission but he should not relate his remarks directly or indirectly to the Bill presently before the Parliament. If he does that I will have to rule him out of order. Having said that, I ask the Minister to respond to Senator Richardson. Senator GARETH EVANS —The first part of the question was: What is the Commission doing about material that may have been supplied to it by law enforcement agencies or material which may be of interest to such agencies? The short answer is this: I am advised that the Commission is currently in the process of returning materials made available to it by law enforcement agencies. It is under a positive obligation to do so if requested by virtue of the terms of section 18 (2) of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act. Senator Durack —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is not correctly quoting the section of the Act and the limitations on it and that is what I was protesting about. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am very happy to quote the terms of the-- The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General to respond to Senator Richardson's question concerning the administration of the Commission. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator can read the terms of the legislation for himself; I will not waste further time in doing that but the answer to Senator Durack's interjection is self-evident. Copies of such material that is given back to agencies in this way can be used. Senator Chaney —When? When is it supposed to be given back? The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Chaney! There are far too many interjections. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I will respond to that interjection but it is difficult to do so without adverting to another matter. I will simply say this: It is not the intention of the Executive Government to arrange for assent to be given to any piece of legislation that might conceivably be debated by this Parliament in the next few hours until the middle of next week. We are advised that that time frame will be entirely sufficient for the Commission to complete its dealing with the documents in question as it thinks appropriate in the way I have mentioned. To complete the sentence I was in the middle of before I was rudely interrupted, if copies of such material returned to such agencies can be used by them in any way they deem appropriate, nothing in any piece of legislation that might conceivably be dealt with by the Parliament in some imminent future, will bear upon that question. Senator Durack —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This answer is clearly debating-- Senator GARETH EVANS —You do not want to know the truth, do you? You just want to wallow in your own stinking prejudice. The PRESIDENT —Order! The House will come to order. I am trying to hear a point of order taken by Senator Durack and he is entitled to be heard. Senator Durack —The Minister is clearly debating the meaning of certain provisions of a Bill the Committee stage of which we will be debating this afternoon. Furthermore the Minister's views on it, even though he believes that everything he thinks is absolutely correct about everything, are challengeable and are challenged by many people. So clearly what this Bill means is a matter for debate in this Parliament later in the day. The PRESIDENT —Order! At the moment the Minister is walking a fine tightrope. He has not fallen off it yet but I remind him to relate his remarks to the question of administration of the Parliamentary Commission. Senator GARETH EVANS —With pleasure, Mr President. As regards the second category of material which has attracted attention, that is, material which may have been received by the Commission other than from law enforcement agencies-that is individuals, organisations and no doubt newspapers-but which may contain material which is or may be of interest to law reform agencies, what is the Commission doing about that? It is doing this: Section 34 of the existing Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act authorises the Commission, if it thinks it appropriate to do so, to communicate information or evidence it has which relates, or may relate, to the commission of an offence to any one of a number of specified law enforcement agencies, including State or Commonwealth Attorneys-General, police forces and the National Crime Authority. Section 34 therefore allows the Commission to pass information concerning offences by third parties to such law reform agencies. It is my understanding that the Commission is in the course of providing information of that character, at least to the National Crime Authority, pursuant to section 34. I am not sure of the position with any other law enforcement agencies. As I said in response to an interjection, the Commission will have ample opportunity to conclude dealing with such material in the way it wants by the middle of next week, before assent is given. As to the second question, is it the case that informants to the Commission are to be prevented from taking allegations to a law enforcement agency of some kind or to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation if it is thought to bear on national security, as someone suggested on another occasion? Are informants of that kind to be prohibited, irrespective of what the Commission chooses to do? The short answer is no. To explain that, I would need to trespass on Standing Orders. I shall not, accordingly, bear upon your patience, Mr President. Senator MASON —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware of an apparent desire by the United States Government to rewrite its anti-ballistic missile treaty with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in ways that would gravely reduce its effectiveness? Is it the Government's understanding that the motive for this rewriting is to expedite the United States strategic defence initiative, or Star Wars, program? What is the Government's view of the ABM treaty's importance? Will the Government exert any influence it has to retain, refine and improve that treaty? Senator GARETH EVANS —As far as the Government is aware, the United States has no current interest in rewriting the ABM treaty. We are aware that, in October 1985, President Reagan accepted as valid a legal interpretation of the ABM treaty to the effect that, for ballistic missile defence systems based on new physical principles, the treaty precluded only deployment-not research, development and testing. At the same time, President Reagan said that the United States would continue to conduct the SDI research program in accordance with a restrictive interpretation of its obligations under the ABM treaty. I think that Senator Mason was referring to that. The Government attaches importance to President Reagan's undertaking to observe a restrictive or traditional interpretation of the ABM treaty. The Government attaches major importance to full and demonstrable compliance with all existing arms control agreements. The ABM treaty has special significance in that it lies at the heart of the prevailing deterrent relationship between the two super-powers. In the Government's view, the integrity of the ABM treaty is of decisive importance to the vital task of concluding new agreements for radical reductions in the nuclear arsenals-an objective to which President Reagan and Secretary-General Gorbachev are committed. The Government has forcefully articulated that view at every available opportunity, including its bilateral consultations with the United States and the Soviet Union, the two parties to the treaty. Senator MASON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. May I take it that the Government does not accept the United States interpretation of the treaty as expressed by President Reagan on that occasion? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Mason might have misunderstood my first paragraph. I said that, in October 1985, President Reagan accepted as valid an interpretation that was quite limited in its view of what the ABM treaty would preclude. At the same time as he accepted that interpretation, he said that the United States would continue to conduct its research program for SDI in accordance with a restrictive interpretation of its obligations under the ABM treaty. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a former distinguished senator from New South Wales, Sir Robert Cotton. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to Sir Robert a warm and friendly welcome on his return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator HARRADINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister has said that Australia is facing the greatest crisis since World War II? Has not the Treasurer pointed out that the immediate cause of this economic crisis is the collapse of our overseas trade? If the collapse of our overseas trade can so imperil our economy, could not an enemy which can interrupt and destroy our trade at sea bring enormous pressure to bear on our country without having to contemplate invading it? What has the Government done to address this question, which is so vital to Australia's future? The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Honourable senators-He was not listening. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is an important question which I think should be taken on notice. Senator Harradine —May I raise the question again, because the Minister did not hear it? Is it a fact that the Prime Minister-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister asked that the question be placed on notice. Senator Harradine —Mr President, that is an insult to the chamber. Senator Gareth Evans —I shall answer the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister now withdraws his request. I ask Senator Harradine to repeat his question. Senator HARRADINE —It would be questions without answers in those circumstances. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister has described the crisis facing Australia as the greatest since World War II? Has not the Treasurer pointed out that the immediate cause of this economic crisis is the collapse of our overseas trade? If the collapse of our overseas trade can so imperil our economy, could not an enemy which can interrupt and destroy that trade at sea bring enormous pressure to bear on our country without having to contemplate invading it? What has the Government done to address this question, which is so vital to Australia's future. Senator GARETH EVANS —After that preamble, I could be forgiven for switching off, Mr President. The short answer is that the Government commissioned the Dibb report. It has received that report, which squarely addresses itself to that issue among a number of related issues related to ensuring our domestic security. The Government has now embarked on preparing a White Paper, which will be a public statement of Government policy on these matters. Of course, one argument which must be addressed and which is central to the whole defence debate is about the protection of sea lanes and trade lanes and the type of defence structure and set of relationships which are necessary to achieve that. That depends on two sides of the equation-assessment of the threats and assessment of the type of resources needed to cope with a variety of threats. Senator Harradine will be well aware that the basic thrust of the Dibb report is to discount as the type of problem about which Australia need worry, or would ever be able to do anything about even if it did worry, the protection of sea lanes by a far-flung force of the kind about which the honourable senator, Santamaria and the rest of the boys are so keen. There will be ample opportunity for much debate on this issue, which is manifestly of extreme national importance. The debate has been conducted at a higher level of intellectual rigour than any similar debate under previous Administrations. The Government will bring all the intellectual rigour which it has in ample abundance to bear in resolving the issue, no doubt never to Senator Harradine's satisfaction but, I believe, to the satisfaction of the Australian people. Senator HARRADINE —I raise a supplementary question, Mr President. My question was not about what Dibb had said about this matter-he devoted, inadequately, only one of the 179 pages of his report to this matter-but about what the Government has done about a crisis which could arise and which has been described by the Prime Minister as the greatest since World War II. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing further to add to my reply. Senator PETER BAUME —Does the Minister for Finance have any reason to doubt the statement made on Budget night by Mr Julian Disney, the President of the Australian Council of Social Service, that almost all pensioners and beneficiaries are going to suffer at least a 1 per cent or 2 per cent loss of income, which will range from a few dollars up to $30 a week? If that is the case, what set of social priorities has guided the Government in determining that that group of Australians-pensioners and beneficiaries-should be targeted in this way in the Budget? Senator WALSH —I am not sure that I heard all of that question correctly but, if I did, Senator Peter Baume said that Julian Disney, or somebody, had said that some pensioners would lose up to $30 a week. As a question of fact, that is not so. The implication of Senator Peter Baume's question is that in its Budget the Government should have increased the amount of money that will be paid, certainly to pensioners, if not to social security recipients more generally. I find it very difficult to reconcile that pious belief with the things that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about, saying that there should be further reductions in government expenditure. He has failed to identify any of the specific existing areas of expenditure where outlays ought to be reduced, but runs around the country promising to increase them by a full $2 billion in satisfying the ragbag collection of client groups that the Liberal and National parties between them have collected. As to the question, it is an inescapable fact that because of the adverse movement-the falls in the prices of the things that Australia sells overseas-which has taken place, there is no alternative to a reduction in average living standards or the accumulation of foreign debt at a higher rate, or some mixture of those two. The Government has decided that average living standards must be reduced for the short term while the economic restructuring takes place that will enable Australians to get back on the path of rising per capita incomes. It is correct, of course, that the increases in pension payments will be delayed for three payment periods, in both November and May. Mr Disney can call that a de facto discount if he wants to, I suppose, but it is not formally a discount because it does not affect the rate, only the timing. Wage earners have already taken a significant discount in wages and, as the Treasurer's statement made very clear, Government policy is that there should be a further decline in real wages at the January wage case and possibly at the one thereafter. Indeed, if one compares the decline in real wages which wage earners have already accepted with those that the Government believes should be accepted in the future, one finds that a far heavier burden has been borne by some wage earners than by pensioners. I am sorry that I do not have the precise figures with me, but if the further wage reductions that the Government is seeking take place on 1 January the standard pension payment, as a proportion of average weekly earnings, will increase by something like a full one per cent between the middle of 1985 and the beginning of 1987. I do not have that precise figure, but I will try to get it in time for Question Time tomorrow and make it available. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Education, who would be aware of my concern about the Bicentenary, which is to be celebrated in this country in a couple of years time. I ask: Can the Minister advise whether the cuts announced to the programs for the Australian Bicentennial Authority will mean the termination of the successful program on Australian studies at the tertiary level? Senator RYAN —I appreciate Senator Coleman's concern that programs of importance and lasting value to the Australian people will be able to proceed in the bicentennial year and I am happy to assure her that the tertiary Australian studies project has not been cut. In fact, the Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority and I have agreed today that there will be an additional $1m for new work in the Australian studies area. That is a very important area because, for the first time, there has been a thorough review of all aspects of tertiary education. The Australian studies project is the first comprehensive review of the extent to which our Australian tertiary education institutions have taken into account Australian scholarship, Australian invention, Australian trade training and the general contribution made by Australians during the 200 years in areas such as law, engineering, trades, environment studies and so on. Of course, there have been many outstanding contributions over the 200 years to all major areas of learning, and I think it is the case that, up till now, that enormous contribution by Australians has not been recognised. As a result of the Australian studies project, all such major contributions will be recognised and documented. As a result of the outstanding work of the Australian studies committee we expect that all Australian tertiary education institutions will be better able to incorporate into curriculum research and teaching approaches the experience and achievements of 200 years of Australian scholarship research and learning. Senator JESSOP —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of media coverage concerning the alleged $400m order through Hong Kong for the manufacture and supply of a military rifle and a sporting rifle from a firm called Armtech? Has the Minister noted that, coincidentally, since this publicity the market price of the shares in that company has risen substantially? Can the Minister say whether the Defence Force has evaluated this rifle? If it has, what were the conclusions of the Defence Force trials? In particular, how does the military version of the Armtech rifle compare with the Steyr weapons family which the Army has selected to replace the existing Service rifle? Senator GARETH EVANS —On the specific questions about the evaluation of the rifle by the Defence Force, the answer provided to me is as follows: No, the Department of Defence has not evaluated the Armtech ART30 rifle as it has had no opportunity to do so. It is understood that there is still only one prototype of the weapon in existence. The Defence Force would require as a minimum 12 rifles selected at random from a production run to undertake a full evaluation. At the time of the Defence trials that resulted in the selection of the Steyr, no production-run rifles had been produced. As to the last question as to how the military version of the Armtech rifle compares with the Steyr weapons family which the Army has selected to replace the existing service rifle, the Department says that it has not been provided with information on the specifications or performance of any of the Armtech rifles and is unable, accordingly, to make a judgment. There is a bit more to this story in terms of what has been going on in the stock exchange, share values and re-evaluation of assets and so on which might add a little more to the explanation of the course of events than the purely technical information that I have given about the evaluation of the rifle. I am happy to provide to Senator Jessop such information as I possess in this respect. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a front-page article in this morning's Courier-Mail pointing out the double-dip provisions under Queensland's parliamentary superannuation scheme? Can the Minister confirm that apparently specific provisions exist in that scheme which discriminate in favour of certain National Party Government Cabinet Ministers? Senator WALSH —The Courier-Mail headline says `MPs, public servants get ``super'' boost' and `Minister will get $550,000', among other things. It is a report of an extensive review of superannuation arrangements for Queensland public servants, I think statutory authority employees, and also members of parliament. The major point made in the report, so far as it applies to members of parliament, is that a Mr Wharton, who is the Minister for Works and Housing and who is due to retire when the present parliamentary term in Queensland expires, will pick up $550,000 as a lump sum. The report goes on to say that under the double-dip provisions in the scheme, should Mr Wharton predecease his wife, she would be entitled to an additional $30,000 a year, indexed to the consumer price index. In other words, the pension entitlement Mr Wharton has will be fully commuted to a lump sum, which, particularly for somebody who accrued it over the period he did, is virtually tax free as well. Then if he croaks, his spouse will pick up a pension related to the pension to which he was entitled but which he had already commuted to a lump sum. In other words, it is a clear double-dipping provision. Similar provisions were introduced into the Commonwealth parliamentary pension scheme by the Fraser-Howard combination in, I think, 1979 or 1980. Those provisions were amended by the present Government in 1983 in two ways: Firstly, no more than 50 per cent of the pension entitlement may be commuted into a lump sum; secondly, should the spouse of a retired parliamentarian outlive the pensioner, five-eighths of whatever pension is actually being received will be paid to that spouse. There is, of course, absolutely no double-dipping in that. Given that the Queensland Government is making major amendments to superannuation arrangements in general, I find it almost unbelievable that even the red-necked National Party Government of Queensland should continue to pick its taxpayers' pockets for the benefit of National Party Ministers to the extent that it does. In a period when the tory parties, if one could call them that generally, are calling for restraint on wages, pensions and that sort of thing, although clearly the National Party Ministers of the Queensland Government have no inner moral compulsion to do this, I hope that sufficient pressure will be brought on them by public opinion in Queensland to follow the example the Federal Government set in 1983 under much less stringent economic circumstances and eliminate the double-dipping provisions in the Queensland parliamentary pension scheme. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. In response to a question from Senator Jones the Minister said that ex gratia payments were not subject to fringe benefits tax. The reason he gave, if I heard him correctly, was because they are not. Does the Minister mean that any company which makes an ex gratia payment to an employee or an associate is not liable for fringe benefits tax, nor is the benefit taxed in the hands of the beneficiary? Will the Minister point to that part of the Act which provides that exemption? Would it not have been more honest to state that an eventuality such as the Moura Widows Fund was not envisaged when framing the Act and that in cases such as this an exemption would be made to the company contribution? Senator WALSH —I did not say anything about ex gratia payments in that answer, as I remember it. What I did say was that the donation to the Moura Widows Fund by the company would not be subject to fringe benefits tax. I suggest that before Senator Parer goes public next time in a way that misinforms the people, he should contact the Commissioner of Taxation or somebody else in a position of authority and establish the facts. One obvious reason why that donation to the Widows Fund was not subject to fringe benefits tax-I will see whether the Treasurer or the Commissioner of Taxation has anything to add to this-was that it was paid in cash. Fringe benefits, by definition, are not paid in cash. Senator VALLENTINE —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, relates to his Press statement of 19 August on the resumption of uranium sales to France. The Minister stated: Australian uranium has not been used in the past, and will not be used in the future, in French nuclear weapons. Will he explain to the Senate exactly what happens to Australia's uranium when it reaches France, and in particular how it is separated through the whole nuclear fuel cycle from uranium imported from Canada, Niger, Gabon, Namibia and other supply countries with few, if any, safeguards, so as to ensure, in his words, `that there is no possibility that Australian uranium can be used in the French nuclear weapons program'? Will he also tell the Senate which uranium France uses for nuclear weapons and which it does not, how the uranium imports are separated on arrival, and how many uranium enrichment plants France has where it can separate the uranium for nuclear weapons from that for peaceful purposes? Will he finally explain how the French Government separates all the uranium it imports to comply with different safeguards conditions imposed by different suppliers, ranging from Niger, with no safeguards, to Australia, which allegedly has the strictest safeguards in the world? Senator GARETH EVANS —As usual, Senator Vallentine's questions are so many and so detailed that it is impossible, as well as being inappropriate, to answer them all here. I am happy to provide full written answers to her. I simply say this: Our uranium is supplied to France and dealt with by France in exactly the same way in practice as it is to other countries with which we have safeguards agreements, or which other countries are parties to multilateral safeguards agreements, and in the case of France there is both. The safeguards are extremely stringent in terms of the conditions that Australia imposes as to the non-use of Australian material for other than strictly peaceful purposes. The application of those safeguards is ensured not only by our reliance on the good faith of the French electricity utilities and the French Government in that respect but also, of course, by the system of inspections which exists internationally to enforce safeguards regimes. In terms of the more detailed questions about how we ensure that Australian molecules do not get jostled up with molecules from Gabon and Niger as continuous flow processes operate, I simply draw Senator Vallentine's attention to the principle of equivalence, which I have had occasion to draw to the attention of the Australian Democrats on numerous previous occasions-it seems to require a lot of explanation. We cannot always be sure that any particular atom can be followed all the way through the machinery-- Senator Mason —That is right. That is the whole point of the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course we cannot. I have made that perfectly clear and there is no hint of dissimulation about it. What we can ensure, and ensure with very great precision through the nuclear accounting systems to which we are party, is that no amount of Australian uranium that goes into the system will be dealt with otherwise than in accordance with Australian safeguards regimes. Senator VALLENTINE —I ask a supplementary question. Am I to take it from the Minister's answer that he is not able to provide the proof that is required by the Australian community at the moment, which is in dismay over the resumption of Australian uranium sales to France, that Australian uranium will not end up in nuclear weapons to be tested in the South Pacific? I think his statement that we rely on the good faith of the French Government leaves a lot to be desired. It is the same French Government which imposed state terrorism in the South Pacific. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is out of order. That portion of the question relating to a supplementary question may be answered by the Minister for Resources and Energy. Senator GARETH EVANS —One of the problems with the anti-nuclear movement is that it demonstrates a triumph of heart over head, of emotion over reason, of extravagant response over rational appreciation. Honourable senators interjecting- Senator GARETH EVANS —I have got enough to put up with this week without having that sort of yowling, mewling and puling going on over there in the corner. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to respond to Senator Vallentine or I will ask him to resume his seat. There are still people who wish to ask questions. Senator GARETH EVANS —The short response, shorn of all my emotion, is that we can be sure that no amount of Australian uranium put into the French system is dealt with by that system otherwise than for peaceful purposes. We are not relying on good faith alone; we are relying on a system that is highly sophisticated and highly developed. I would be delighted to give Senator Vallentine a long and comprehensive answer. I just wish that in the future when I give her such answers she would use them. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Given the benefit of hindsight could the Minister now confirm his answer to a recent question on the fringe benefits tax that cash payments are not subject to fringe benefits tax even though they are paid to or on behalf of an employee or a former employee or associates? Senator WALSH —I do not know what the honourable senator is talking about. If he is talking about the answer I gave to Senator Parer, I said that this was a donation. One of the things which distinguished it from a fringe benefit was that it was paid in cash and fringe benefits are not paid in cash. Senator WATSON —I ask a supplementary question. Does that mean that companies can now make donations in cash to or on behalf of employees for certain specified benefits and no longer attract the fringe benefits tax? I thought that that cut across the whole purpose of the legislation. Senator WALSH —Of course, that is not so because that would be something paid to an employee because of the relationship which exists between the employer and the employee-that is, that the person is, by definition, an employee. I am looking at a note that has been supplied by the Treasurer's office. It says that employer donations to such relief funds are not subject to the fringe benefits tax. I am not surprised that the minds of those in the Liberal Party are very well tuned to trying to devise ways to cheat the tax system-half the members of the finance committee in Western Australia were up to their ears in bottom of the harbour tax evasion schemes- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is clearly debating the matter. I ask him to get back to the supplementary answer. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. It does not surprise me that members of the Liberal Party are putting their brains into overdrive-whatever brains they have-in an attempt to devise ways to cheat the tax system on the fringe benefits tax in the way that they have become accustomed to cheating the tax system in every way they could think of for the last 10 or 20 years. Senator WATSON —I ask a supplementary question. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator has had one supplementary question. That is sufficient. Today there have been six supplementary questions. That is one of the reasons why a number of honourable senators have not been able to get the call. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —Pursuant to notice of intention given earlier today I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 1 and 3 standing in my name. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to notice of intention given earlier today I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name relating to the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 1986. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to make a ministerial statement on the London meeting on South Africa and to incorporate the statement and the meeting communique in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I wish to report on the Prime Minister's involvement in the meeting in London from 3 to 5 August of Heads of Government of seven Commonwealth countries on the issue of South Africa. I seek leave to table the communique of the meeting. The meeting brought together the Heads of Government of Australia, the Bahamas, Britain, Canada, India, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It was a crucial meeting from three points of view. First, it came against the background of a rapidly deteriorating situation in South Africa. That country has been experiencing the most wide-spread and destructive unrest in its post-war history. In the past two years more than 2,200 people have lost their lives, many in clashes with the security forces. Thousands have been injured. Since the Government declared a new State of Emergency in June at least 8,551 people have been detained on a long term basis, according to the Government's own figures. These include leaders of political parties, trade unions, student groups, human rights organisations, churches and many others opposed to apartheid. The meeting in London was therefore required to formulate a firm response to the deepening tragedy. Second, the meeting came at a time of heightened tensions within the Commonwealth, tensions potentially capable of fracturing this longstanding organisation. The boycott of the Commonwealth Games and threats to leave the Commonwealth were symptoms of deep concern and frustration. The London meeting therefore had an important role in preserving the credibility and integrity of the Commonwealth. Southern African issues have been a dominant theme in the Commonwealth over the years and we should not forget that South Africa was a founding member of the Commonwealth and that its departure was decided by the white minority government. Third, the meeting was timely in terms of consideration of South Africa underway in other major countries. In June the leaders of the European Community agreed to consider measures against South Africa in three months time if South Africa failed to take certain political steps. In London the meeting was therefore conscious of the important decisions the European Community would be taking in September. It was also conscious of the development in the United States Congress of new measures against South Africa. The London meeting provided the opportunity to give an important international lead. This was no ad hoc gathering, hastily convened as some knee jerk response to the appalling situation in South Africa. It was a step in a process already delineated with great care by all Commonwealth Heads of Government. The Commonwealth Accord on Southern Africa agreed at Nassau in 1985 embodied a clear strategy. This involved the Australian initiative to establish a Group of Eminent Persons (EPG) to try to achieve negotiation and peaceful change. It involved the definition of clear benchmarks against which to judge the South African Government's willingness or otherwise to initiate change. It involved a graduated approach to measures against South Africa comprising a first tranche of measures to be taken immediately, consideration of a second tranche six months after Nassau if adequate progress had not been made, and possible further measures should the first and second tranches fail to produce results in a reasonable period. It involved the pursuit of this program jointly. What was addressed, then, was not a strategy which gave the South African Government no chance to change. It was not a strategy of lashing out at South Africa in a fit of pique. It was a strategy which very deliberately gave South Africa time to show that it was prepared to move towards a non-racial and representative government; which would take advantage of the opportunity offered by the EPG to facilitate negotiations with black South African leaders; and which made the adoption of sanctions totally contingent on the decisions of the South African Government itself. The Nassau Accord established the mandate for the meeting in London. The first part of our mandate was to review the situation in South Africa and provide an opinion whether adequate progress had been made towards the objectives stated in the Accord. The meeting conducted this review in London at length and in detail. It had the benefit not only of the report of the EPG but of first hand accounts by the two Co-chairmen of the Group-Mr Malcolm Fraser of Australia and General Obasanjo of Nigeria-and by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, who had undertaken a mission to South Africa on behalf of the European Community. The report of the EPG was crucial to the review. The Prime Minister emphasised that the group performed a very difficult task with great determination and integrity. The role played by Mr Fraser reflects great credit upon him. All members have access to the report and it is suggested that no objective reader could find it other than a powerful and compelling account of the daily agony of apartheid for the majority of South Africans. The EPG put forward a creative negotiating concept but this was rejected by the South African Government. The response revealed an unwillingness on the part of the Government to make fundamental changes and to negotiate the creation of a genuinely democratic system. The Government remained wedded to the concept of political rights being granted on a group rather than an individual basis, which implies that race classification will remain in place, and to the retention of the so called independent homelands. The Government has flatly ruled out a political system based on one-person one-vote in a unitary state. The EPG was left no alternative but to conclude, and I quote, ``the Government of South Africa at the end made it impossible for us to proceed any further''. This was their unanimous view. It was striking at the London meeting that the impressions conveyed by Sir Geoffrey Howe coincided in essential respects with those of the two Co-chairmen of the EPG. Moreover, in terms of the benchmarks specified in the Commonwealth Accord, the facts spoke for themselves. Not one of the benchmarks had been reached by the South African Government. Specific and meaningful action has not been taken to dismantle apartheid. A new State of Emergency has been introduced. Nelson Mandela and other detainees are still in gaol. Political freedom does not exist and the bans on the African National Congress and other political parties have not been lifted. No process of dialogue for non-racial and representative government is underway. Worse than this, spiralling violence and repression in South Africa, and military attacks by South Africa on Harare, Lusaka and Gaborone in May, demonstrated to those in London that the situation in South Africa had gone backwards. As the communique attests this was the unanimous judgement of the seven Heads of Government. The second part of the mandate under the Nassau Accord, was to consider further measures against South Africa. Here there was a division of opinion between Britain and the other six participants. Perfectly properly, the meeting did not seek to camouflage or disguise this in the communique. Australia, the Bahamas, Canada, India, Zambia and Zimbabwe adopted a range of further measures, including those defined in the second tranche of the Nassau Accord. Britain was unwilling to take all the steps and the six regarded this, in the language of the communique, with both concern and regret. That having been said, the three undertakings the British Prime Minister gave were, of course, welcome as far as they went and will help the prospects of action by the European Community as a whole. As the Prime Minister said to his colleagues in London, he wanted if possible a united but above all credible and effective approach. Better that those ready to act should do so rather than settle for some transparently ineffectual compromise. The willingness of the six to adopt strong measures was because the Commonwealth and its international leadership role on southern African issues have been preserved. Below are the measures which Australia has accepted and which are listed in the communique. These measures will be brought into effect as soon as possible. (A) A ban on air links with South Africa. For Australia this principally involves terminating South African Airways services. The Government is now giving further consideration to the means of implementing this measure taking into account the provisions of the Australia-South Africa Air Services Agreement. (B) A ban on new investment or reinvestment of profits earned in South Africa. The reference to reinvestment concerns reinvestment of repat- riated profits, given the problems of applying extraterritorially a ban on reinvestment of profits which remain in South Africa. The Government has decided that in the first instance this measure will be effected through a call on Australian investors to refrain from such investment. (C) A ban on the import of agricultural products from South Africa. The Government has decided that provision will be made for prospective implementation of this measure 180 days after the necessary customs negotiations have been promulgated. This will obviate problems for importers who have existing commitments. The Government will shortly be considering certain definitional matters related to this measure. (D) The termination of double taxation agreements with South Africa. Australia has no such agreement with South Africa. (E) The termination of all Government assistance to investment in, and trade with, South Africa. The Government has already taken substantial action in this area. It has now decided to terminate all remaining Commonwealth Government assistance through the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, the Export Finance Insurance Group and the Overseas Projects Unit of Austrade to Australian firms dealing with South Africa. This will be done consistent with legislative requirements and the honouring of insurance contracts entered into prior to the date of implementation. (F) A ban on all Government procurement in South Africa. Australia has already introduced this measure save for the procurement necessary to maintain our diplomatic missions. (G) A ban on Government contracts with majority-owned South African companies. This measure has also already been introduced. (H) A ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa. The Government will terminate the temporary residence authority of South Africa based officials of the South African Tourist Commission in Sydney. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism will be bringing forward proposals concerning other means of implementing this ban. These eight measures comprise the second tranche identified in the Nassau Accord. The following three additional measures decided upon in London take into account the movement which has occurred on sanctions in both the United States and the European Community since Nassau. (i) A ban on all new bank loans to South Africa, whether to the public or private sectors. The Government has already called on banks to refrain from such loans. (j) A ban on the import of uranium, coal, iron and steel from South Africa. Again this will be introduced prospectively 180 days after the introduction of regulations. The Government will shortly be considering certain definitional matters related to this measure. (k) The withdrawal of all consular facilities in South Africa except for our own nationals and nationals of those countries to whom we render consular services. This relates principally to visa issuing in South Africa. The Government is considering how broadly the withdrawal of visa issuing facilities should be applied and this matter will be the subject of a separate announcement. The Government has decided to reduce South African representation in Australia through withdrawal of temporary residence authority for South African Trade Officers at the South African Trade Commissioner's office in Melbourne and for the Commercial Vice-Consul in Sydney. Australia withdrew its Trade Commissioner from South Africa in 1985. In addition there is the provision in the budget for a new $5 million assistance program for Southern Africa over a five year period. This will, in particular, provide humanitarian assistance for black South Africans, Namibians and black South African refugees in the areas of education and training. It is the purpose today to report on the London meeting rather than engage in broad debate on the issue of sanctions. But there are several points which are absolutely central. First, it is a characteristic of the debate about sanctions that those opposed to them prefer to set up straw men rather than address the real rationale for such measures. One such straw man is that negotiation and dialogue are to be preferred to sanctions. In fact it is a fundamental fallacy to see negotiation and dialogue on the one hand and sanctions on the other as somehow contradictory. The purpose of sanctions is precisely to bring home to the South African Government that its present posture, a repressive defence of the status quo, entails costs and that a change of course would bring benefits. The London communique is explicit that if Pretoria responds positively we all stand ready to review the situation and to rescind the measures which have been adopted. Those who oppose the sanctions do so frequently on the purported grounds that they will hurt the black community. The Government rejects this as patronising and offensive to those representative black leaders such as Bishop Tutu, leaders of the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front, leaders of the Front Line States, and black trade union leaders such as those met in London by the Prime Minister, who have made it clear that the black community of South Africa is already suffering immeasurably under apartheid and believes the price of sanctions is one it is prepared to pay. Another straw man is that sanctions are ineffective because they will not destroy the South African economy or bring down the South African Government. Neither of these things is the real rationale for sanctions and people who argue this way are either too obtuse or lacking the intellectual honesty to address the much more complex calculations involved. The object, as Mr Hayden has eloquently said, is not to bring South Africa to its knees but to bring it to its senses. The object is not to bring down a government but to change the political dynamics of South Africa in a more progressive direction. The key point is that history shows that to the extent South Africa has changed it has done so in response to a changing internal dynamic which has drawn support and encouragement from external pressure. History also shows that in the absence of such pressures South Africa will prevaricate and delay indefinitely. Since inaction means delay and delay means a downwards spiral into violence those opposed to action bear a grave responsibility. Third, concrete measures are the only way to fulfil our moral obligation as liberal democracies serious about the values of individual liberty and democratic rights. Apartheid is universally deplored but repugnance alone is not sufficient for its elimination. Vocal opposition without tangible measures is hollow. Fourth, and very importantly, the self-interest of the West requires action. Make no mistake, change will come about one day in South Africa and it is a question of vital importance how it comes. The political, economic and strategic interests of the West will be dealt a tremendous blow if the process is a violent one which throws up a radical successor regime which regards the West as hostile. The purpose of sanctions is to bring home to the South African Government and its domestic constituency the need for peaceful change, and to send a signal to those moderate black leaders striving for change by non-violent means that they are not alone. In fact the cost of adopting measures now-whether to Australia, Britain, Canada, the United States, the European Community or Japan-will be nothing compared to the cost if South Africa plunges into conflict. It is for this reason, and also because a great moral issue is involved, that Western countries cannot afford to take decisions about sanctions on the basis of some narrow short-term calculation in dollars and cents. The Prime Minister did not do so in associating Australia with the measures agreed at London. Nor does the Government shirk from, or apologise for, the fact that the measures could be at some cost to Australia. This depends upon many imponderables, including the extent to which the measures are adopted by other countries, including particularly South Africa's major economic partners. No definitive tally can be given. Certainly there is a potential cost given that our policy deliberately constrains us from developing lucrative commercial relations with the largest economy on the African continent. Any costs would be harder to bear should others stand by and perhaps benefit from the principled stand now being taken by an ever-growing section of the world's community. The point, as stated in the communique, is that such measures have become a moral and political imperative which can no longer be deferred. The London decisions do not constitute only a recommendation to the Commonwealth as a whole. They usher in a period of intensive consultations within the international community with emphasis on those countries that presently sustain a significant level of economic relations with South Africa. The Prime Minister has sent messages to the Heads of Government of the European Community countries conveying the Government's views and urging that action be taken. He has written in the same terms to President Reagan and to Prime Minister Nakasone. The visit to Australia next week of the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, Richard Lugar, will provide a further valuable opportunity to follow up the London decisions. The Western world is beginning to move on this vital international issue. On 15 August the United States Senate voted 84 to 14 in favour of strong measures, further evidence that there is solid bipartisan support for action in the United States. As noted earlier, the European Community will consider measures in September and movement by Britain at the London meeting should facilitate agreement. The indications are that Japan would be prepared to be part of a position concerted with other major Western powers. The Government, in taking the decisions it has, has therefore aligned Australia with the emerging international consensus. But we have done more. We have played a major part in helping to shape that consensus. This is a role of which Australians can be proud. COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT REVIEW MEETING LONDON, 3-5 AUGUST 1986 COMMUNIQUE As agreed at Nassau last October, our Meeting was held in the special context of the crisis in Southern Africa. At the outset of our discussions we specifically reaffirmed our commitment to the Commonwealth Accord on Southern Africa which, with our other colleagues, we had concluded at Nassau. We reaffirmed, in particular, the united belief we expressed in the Accord that ``apartheid must be dismantled now if a greater tragedy is to be averted, and that concerted pressure must be brought to bear to achieve that end''. 2. At our request the Co-Chairmen of the Commonwealth Group of Eminent Persons (EPG), General Olusegun Obasanjo and Mr Malcolm Fraser, introduced the Report of the EPG and answered the many questions we put to them. Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British Foreign Secretary, who undertook a mission to Southern Africa in his capacity as President of the Council of Ministers of the EEC, also briefed us on the results of his mission. 3. The Report of the EPG, Mission to South Africa, was the central document at our discussions. That unanimous Report has commanded attention worldwide as pointing the way forward for South Africa and for the world in relation to South Africa. We warmly commend the Group's work which has made a positive and enduring contribution to the efforts to end apartheid and establish a non-racial and representative government in South Africa. We particularly commend the EPG's `negotiating concept' and deeply regret its rejection by the South African Government. 4. At Nassau, the Commonwealth unanimously adopted a common programme of action which included a number of economic measures against South Africa. It was our collective hope that those measures and the efforts of the EPG to promote a process of dialogue in South Africa would, within six months, bring about concrete progress towards our objectives of seeing apartheid dismantled and the structures of democracy erected in South Africa. 5. As envisaged in the Accord, we have reviewed the situation. We are profoundly disappointed that the authorities in Pretoria have taken none of the five steps which at Nassau we called on them to take ``in a genuine manner and as a matter of urgency''. Nelson Mandela and other political leaders remain in prison. A new and more widely repressive emergency has been imposed and political freedom more rigorously curtailed; the ANC and other political parties are still banned. Beyond these, however, it has been a matter of deep concern to us that the EPG after its most patient efforts has been forced to conclude that ``at present there is no genuine intention on the part of the South African Government to dismantle apartheid and no present prospect of a process of dialogue leading to the establishment of a non-racial and representative government''. We had looked at Nassau for the initiation by Pretoria of a process of dialogue in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides. Instead, as the EPG found, the cycle of violence and counter-violence has spiralled. 6. We receive the Group's findings with disappointment, and deplore the conduct of the South African Government whose actions, including the raids on neighbouring countries at a crucial moment of the EPG's work, terminated its efforts for peaceful change. We continue to believe with the EPG that the cycle of violence in South Africa must end. It is clearly established that the situation in South Africa constitutes a serious threat to regional peace and security. 7. It is thus clear to us that since our meeting in Nassau there has not been the adequate concrete progress that we looked for there. Indeed, the situation has deteriorated. 8. Accordingly, in the light of our review and of our agreement at Nassau, we have considered the adoption of further measures against the background of the EPG's conclusion that the absence of effective economic pressure on South Africa and the belief of the South African authorities that it need not be feared are actually deferring change. We acknowledge that the Commonwealth cannot stand by and allow the cycle of violence to spiral, but must take effective concerted action. 9. We are agreed that one element of such action must be the adoption of further measures to impress on the authorities in Pretoria the compelling urgency of dismantling apartheid and erecting the structures of democracy in South Africa. 10. In doing so, we have looked particularly at the measures listed in para. 7 of the Accord which some of us at Nassau had already indicated a willingness to include in any consideration of further measures. But we have looked as well to other measures under consideration elsewhere. In deciding on the adoption of further measures, we recognise that if they are to have maximum effect they should be part of a wider programme of international action. 11. The British Government's position is set out in paragraph 12. The rest of us have agreed as follows: (a) The adoption of further substantial economic measures against South Africa is a moral and political imperative to which a positive response can no longer be deferred. (b) We ourselves will therefore adopt the following measures and commend them to the rest of the Commonwealth and the wider international community for urgent adoption and implementation: (i) all the measures listed in paragraph 7 of the Nassau Accord, namely: (a) a ban on air links with South Africa, (b) a ban on new investment or reinvestment of profits earned in South Africa. (c) a ban on the import of agricultural products from South Africa, (d) the termination of double taxation agreements with South Africa, (e) the termination of all government assistance to investment in, and trade with South Africa, (f) a ban on all government procurement in South Africa, (g) a ban on government contracts with majority-owned South African companies, and (h) a ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa, and (ii) the following additional measures: (i) a ban on all new bank loans to South Africa, whether to the public or private sectors, (j) a ban on the import of uranium, coal, iron and steel from South Africa, and (k) the withdrawal of all consular facilities in South Africa except for our own nationals and nationals of third countries to whom we render consular services. (c) While expressing both concern and regret that the British Government does not join in our agreement, we note its intention to proceed with the measures mentioned in paragraph 12 below. (d) We feel, however, that we must do more. We look beyond the Commonwealth to the wider international community. We will, therefore, immediately embark on intensive consultations within the international community with a view to securing concerted international action in the coming months, our emphasis being on those countries that presently sustain a significant level of economic relations with South Africa. 12. The British Government, while taking a different view on the likely impact of economic sanctions, declared that it will: (i) put a voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa, (ii) put a voluntary ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa, and (iii) accept and implement any EEC decision to ban the import of coal, iron, and steel and of gold coins from South Africa. 13. As a further element of our collective commitment to effective action, we have requested the Secretary-General, with assistance from our Governments, to co-ordinate the implementation of the agreed measures and to identify such adjustment as may be necessary in Commonwealth countries affected by them. 14. We renew the call we made at Nassau on the authorities in Pretoria to initiate, in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides, a process of dialogue across lines of colour, politics and religion with a view to establishing a non-racial and representative government in a united and non-fragmented South Africa. If Pretoria responds positively to this call and takes the other steps for which we called in paragraph 2 of the Nassau Accord, we stand ready to review the situation and to rescind the measures we have adopted if appropriate; and to contribute, in all ways open to us, to an orderly transition to social, economic and political justice in South Africa and to peace and stability in Southern Africa as a whole. 15. On the other hand, we are equally mindful of our further commitment at Nassau that if in a reasonable time even these further measures have not had the desired effect, still further effective measures will have to be considered. We trust that the authorities in Pretoria will recognise the seriousness of our resolve. Acts of economic or other agression against neighbouring states by way of retaliation or otherwise will activate that resolve. 16. Regretting the absence of full agreement but recognising that the potential for united Commonwealth action still exists, we agree that the seven Governments will keep the situation under review with the view to advising whether any further collective Commonwealth action, including a full Heads of Government Meeting, is desirable. We are conscious that the situation in South Africa may evolve rapidly and dangerously. We believe the Commonwealth must retain its capacity to help to advance the objectives of the Nassau Accord and be ready to use all the means at its disposal to do so. 17. Meeting in London at a time of heightened strains within our association, we take the opportunity to renew our own firm commitment to the future of the Commonwealth and to the aims and objectives which have guided it over the years. We are fortified in this renewal by the spirit of frankness in friendship which characterised our discussions and our belief that they have helped to light a common path towards fulfilment of our common purpose, namely, the dismantling of apartheid and the establishment of a non-racial and representative government in South Africa as a matter of compelling urgency. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Government has used the Commonwealth Grants Commission to suggest that the Australian Capital Territory is over-financed compared with other States. The Government underplays the regional and national role of Canberra. Canberrans are right to be worried about the financial arrangements that are involved in the Australian Capital Territory self-government proposals-if we ever do get self-government under the current Parliament! I wish to say a few things about the importance of the Commonwealth Grants Commission which has done a very workman-like job in looking at the grants necessary, in the ACT particularly. So much do I believe that its influence should be continued in the allocation of money to Canberra that in the Bill that I will present tomorrow I have incorporated the Commonwealth Grants Commission as the organisation which would determine the financial allocations to the Australian Capital Territory or would advise the Government on that. It is extremely important that when the Government gives guidelines to the Commonwealth Grants Commission as to what money should be granted to the Australian Capital Territory it should take into account the fact not only that Canberra is our national capital and requires an enormous amount of extra funds to handle the-should I say-pomp and circumstance of the Parliamentary Triangle, the gardens and facilities that are associated with a national capital, but also that Canberra is a very important regional centre for areas around it in New South Wales. This fact always seems to be missed out in estimating the role that Canberra plays and the amount of money that is necessary for operating municipal functions within Canberra. One of the problems that has come out of the Budget is that the Minister has said that Canberra has been molly-coddled and that people in Canberra have had a much higher level of funding than have people in the rest of the country. We must realise that Canberra has a growth rate greater than almost any other area. The need for new infrastructure and new facilities is extremely important. The Australian Democrats will make certain that this is not forgotten during the forthcoming debates on funding for our national capital. The Government has left the new self-governing body-if it ever comes into effect-with a real problem by selling its main fee-earning section. It sold the Belconnen Mall which actually made a profit. The Government has not even given Canberra the advantage of lease sale revenues in its proposal for self-government. Planning and leases have been left under Federal jurisdiction. We cannot afford a starved national capital and even as temporary Canberrans we cannot afford to put up with the Government trying to squeeze the people of Canberra because the Government has not taken into account a number of the features which Canberra offers both to the local region and to the national capital as well as the local municipal function. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The tabling of the 1985-86 annual report of the Export Development Grants Board should be seen in the context of Australia's precarious economic position and the 1986-87 Budget, which the Government hopes will contribute to resolving our economic problems. There is little doubt that the major problems in the Australian economy today relate to trade; yet in the Budget there was no trade statement. In a nutshell, we have borrowed too much, we are importing too much, and we do not export enough. We are living beyond our means internationally. There is very little solace in the Budget, which seems to look only inwards. One particular problem is that the Government is not putting sufficient money and effort into schemes such as the export development grants scheme. That is quite obvious from looking at the report. The 1985-86 Budget was predicated on the assumption that the devaluation of the Australian dollar then experienced would lead to an increase in exports and a reduction in imports. It is because this has not happened that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) this year were forced to tell Australians that we are really living beyond our means, and introduce a Budget which pandered to the perceived economic wisdom of the Treasury. There are so many people in the Treasury whose minds are set in stone, or set by Stone. I know Mr Stone has left but his influence lives on in a number of clones within that Department who are looking at pandering to international traders, international bankers and the international money market. It is a pity that these speculators have not rewarded the Government with the praise it wanted after the Budget. It is an even greater pity that the international traders have voted with their pockets to push the Australian dollar down after the Budget. We have had this reported quite widely in the Press. The Export Development Grants Board report should remind us that there is an alternative to solving our trade problems. That alternative is to get aggressively into exporting and promote our industries as export industries instead of just trying to solve the problems by twiddling the wrong knobs. I repeat an analogy I made before. I believe the Government is currently like a driver in a runaway car fiddling with the cigarette lighter and the ash-tray. The Government is not handling the right things. The export development grants scheme could be an extremely important way to push exports. It is very important that we get on to this aggressive approach to the export of our products in almost the same way, but not quite as ruthlessly, as the European Economic Community and the United States of America. We have to use quantitative restrictions and other barriers to reduce imports, to protect ourselves against dumping. If the Government had opted for a bigger deficit I expect that the dollar would still be where it is now. However, the extra money could have been used to promote and subsidise the sale of existing Australian exports which are suffering because the EEC and the US are subsidising their exports. I doubt that the devaluation is enough to significantly increase Australia's exports in the short run. We will still be waiting for the J-curve many months hence. Australia's economic problems are in fact its trade problems, and until we have effective schemes which go way beyond the current export market development grants scheme we will not have an effective way of solving our trade problems and of getting ourselves out of the current economic mess into which successive government policies have put us. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Again, we have had the spectacle of the Remuneration Tribunal's review determinations being upset by Executive government decision. This leads one to consider whether the money expended on keeping the Remuneration Tribunal in existence is worth while. If the Remuneration Tribunal is charged with considering matters affecting the entitlements of members of parliament on an independent basis and nobody accepts the umpire's decision, of course one wonders whether it is properly established, whether it is properly doing its job, or whether it is worth while at all. One could understand some action being taken in the Parliament to overturn provisions of the Remuneration Tribunal where those provisions are not accompanied by a judgment, by a well developed logical argument in support of the provisions of those determinations. One such provision is that enabling members of parliament to take de factos overseas at government expense. This provision was inserted at the request of the Executive Government. The Remuneration Tribunal included it in the determination without giving any reason whatsoever. That might have been all right had it been a minor matter, but by giving a de facto relationship the same status as a bona fide marriage relationship it has acted as a legislative pace-setter. It included it in its determination in a manner which effectively denied to Parliament its right to exercise untrammelled scrutiny and control over delegated legislation. The Senate will know the history of the attempts of this Parliament to address itself to that matter of great principle. Obviously, as members of parliament will know, the Tribunal knew that we, as members of parliament, could do nothing about that-unless we tipped over the whole of the Tribunal's recommendations and the Tribunal's decision-except by substantive legislation. That substantive legislation has been brought forward by the Government, not in respect of this de facto matter but in a vain gesture to upset the Tribunal's recommendations on the salary of members of parliament. Of course, I have also utilised this opportunity to overturn the Tribunal's recommendation in respect of the de facto issue. I understand that the amendment moved by the Opposition has gone back to the House of Representatives, which has rejected that amendment. The matter will come back to this chamber. Therefore, if a Minister in this place then moves that the amendment not be insisted upon, I certainly will seek to amend that motion to reinstate my amendment to amend the Tribunal's determination relating to de factos. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Senate will no doubt have a greater opportunity to canvass the issues contained in this report on election funding and financial disclosure when the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform brings down its report, presumably subsequently this year. I want to say something very short and sharp in relation to this report. I believe that the method of election funding for political parties and political candidates has acted against the best interests of democracy in Australia. If a test for democracy is to allow equality of opportunity and fairness to individual candidates, then the funding proposals contained in this conciliation and arbitration fail that test. The taxpayers' funding of election candidates and political parties in this country together with the new list system in the Senate put paid to the chances of almost all candidates who dare to stand as independents for this chamber or for the House of Representatives rather than standing as members of political parties. I said `almost', because naturally one would want to be sanguine about the outcome of the next election. I will just give honourable senators one example of what I consider to be unfair in this system. In the last Senate election in 1984 the Australian Labor Party in my State expended-as I assess it-almost three times the amount of taxpayers' money provided under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which the Senator Brian Harradine Group candidate spent. This money was spent on advertisements specifically directed at that candidate. I ask the Senate whether that is fair? Is it fair or proper for a political party to use taxpayers' funds to mount a media campaign specifically directed against an individual candidate? Is it fair that the cost of that Labor Party campaign was virtually three times the amount of money that was able to be expended in relation to that independent candidate's campaign? It appears to me that these provisions entrench the party political system to the disadvantage of independent candidates. I think that that is a real problem, particularly as it relates to the Senate, which is supposed to be a States House. If there is an independent candidate from a particular State and that candidate is to get a fair go, then he or she should not be faced with the prospect of the utilisation of massive amounts of taxpayers' funds to be directed specifically against him or her-substantially in excess of the amount of money that the candidate has available for expenditure in that election. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of section 81 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, I present the report of the Reserve Bank of Australia Board on the operations of the Bank, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General for the financial year 1985-86. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit of the Australian Taxation Office, unpresented group certificates, dated 20 August 1986. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the provision of 50 replacement houses at Woomera. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The proposal is for the construction of 50 replacement houses at Woomera in South Australia. The Committee found this inquiry both unique and challenging-unique because Woomera is located in an isolated part of South Australia with a climate that would tax even the most even-tempered resident, and challenging because of Woomera's retreat from its heyday when it enjoyed a population of 6,000, resulting from the activities of the United Kingdom-Australia joint project, to a present population of about 1,900. This circumstance has generated a view in some places that Woomera is in a state of continuing decline and that, as a consequence, further investment by way of housing would be unsustainable. The Committee paid particular attention to this aspect and was thoroughly satisfied by cross-examination of witnesses that there would be a Defence commitment for at least the next 15 years and that therefore it would be financially prudent and socially responsible for the existing houses at Woomera to be replaced. They are old and have reached the end of their economic lives. Refurbishment of the housing to an acceptable level would not be cost effective; indeed, refurbishment would exceed the cost of replacement houses. Against this background and in the context of negotiations between the Commonwealth and the South Australian Government about normalising Woomera, the Committee has concluded that there is a need to provide 50 replacement houses. The Committee has recommended, however, that the houses should be of a higher standard than that proposed. The Committee further proposes that other instrumentalities or bodies that are obliged to provide accommodation for their employees or personnel should, on the basis of cost benefit, seek to incorporate their housing needs with the Defence proposal that is contained within this reference. The Committee's report contains recommendations about the process of normalisation, the need for other Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities to rectify housing that is allocated to their employees and a number of other matters related to the construction of the houses. The Committee believes these recommendations should be examined carefully by the Government before any decisions are taken about proceeding with the work. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.34) —The Industries Assistance Commission has recommended an across the board tariff of 20 per cent for the power electronics equipment industry, except for power controllers which are closely related to computers which will, because of this, attract a bounty of 25 per cent. I believe this is a real problem. This is why I have chosen this paper from a number of papers that are being presented in this area to illustrate the problem with the Government's import-export policy, which is why we are in such a mess with trade. I would like to start by looking at the structure of the industry. The manufacturers of core products in this industry are dominated by five larger firms which are mainly subsidiaries or affiliates of overseas companies and which also make a wide range of related equipment. There are, however, about 30 small local firms which make specialty products, often on short runs or an individual jobbing basis, assembling components or products from the main manufacturers. Tariffs are basically a part of an import replacement program rather than a dynamic export program. The only way in which we can justify an industry in power electronics in Australia is really by trying to move ourselves to some extent into an export area. The IAC reports that most of the components used in the production of power electronics equipment are imported. On the other hand, very little of the production is exported, and most exports are of secondary systems incorporating value added mainly in the form of design, engineering, software and support. The industry is a moderate growth industry, mainly because of the changing technologies leading, in Australia, to a much wider use of control systems in manufacturing on a local basis. There are enormous export prospects, but we are not making any effort to move into these areas. I must examine why the prospects for such exports remain poor in the foreseeable future and list some of the impediments to exports. Firstly, we are very distant from the major markets for these products; we do not have a large local market for them. Import competition and off-shore manufacturing mean that countries just to our north which have much lower labour rates can assemble products much more cheaply than we can. Trade barriers which operate overseas make it very difficult for us to compete in these areas. It seems that the more barriers one puts up the less competitive everybody is around the world. We should be looking very closely at getting back into a good round of trade negotiations to lower tariffs rather than to raise them. Senator Peter Baume —Lower them for South Australian whitegoods? Senator VIGOR —Indeed there are a lot of things that we could do to help the South Australian industry. We also need to improve the quality and our backup support for these products. Currently we have no understanding of that area. Australia is very dependent on licensing arrangements for technological know-how in power and electronics. In Australia we are currently using out of date technology that is at least one generation behind the state of the art. There is an enormous cost of research and development in this area, but very little money is expended here. Thus Australia has no export markets to protect; all components are imported, and products themselves are used as components in larger systems. Why should we have tariffs at all? I believe the policy in this area is in a mess. If we have across the board tariffs on components and products alike, is there any wonder that Australian manufacturers cannot export products at attractive prices? There is a better solution; it is through bounties. However, in this Budget the Government has cut bounties by $42m; in the IAC reports tabled here yesterday are a whole series of tariff measures, and I believe that is a real problem. We need a strong bounty system for helping industries which we know will export. This is the only way in which we will keep ourselves afloat in the very, very turbulent sea of international trade. I support a strong independent Australia, and the only way in which we are going to do this is by being a strong exporter of quality products. This policy does not help. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.40) —I commend this report to the Senate. The Australian National University continues to serve well the people of Australia and those of our region, with an increasing number of students, both undergraduate and graduate, in spite of continued financial pressures. I congratulate the university on its entrepreneurial success in attracting external supporting funds which have come to it in recognition of the university's contribution in many fields of endeavour and research. I beg the Government to reconsider its policy of squeezing the very life-blood of our future capacity for innovation and, possibly, survival. Education and research are assets for the Australian people which we cannot afford to run down if ever we hope to compete on an equal basis internationally. I also commend the university on its practical program of visiting fellowships, which contributes in a major way to the intellectual climate in Australia. I commend the inclusion of distinguished retired members of staff who continue actively to pursue their scholarly interests within the university. I suggest that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation could consider a similar program, rather than simply having a very expensive program of pensioning off a large number of research staff under the projected early retirement scheme. Indeed, there could be co-operation between CSIRO and the university in using some of the staff to supervise Master of Science and other post-graduate programs in a very much more effective way than currently happens. I believe that this would lead to those people who had retired from an active life in research keeping up their research interests and being a real resource for Australia. The Australian National University has a unique role in foreign affairs. Its Research School of Pacific Studies has done much to focus Australian attention on Pacific countries and to increase our understanding of and identity with our regional neighbours. This, I believe, could lead to a wonderful system of co-operation if we are willing to listen to people within the university who support the idea of a Pacific cultural and economic community. The Peace Research Centre within the Research School of Pacific Studies holds the promise of educating a new generation in positive attitudes towards peace in our region and in the world. I am very pleased to note the appointment of Mr John Mack from South Australia as its first Head. In view of the university's central role in liaising with overseas countries and people, I find the moves by the Government to restrict the number of overseas students most disturbing. It is through personal contact that a natural friendship can develop between the people of various countries and that understanding can be built up. Many of the people currently holding high office in neighbouring countries were educated in Australia through the Colombo Plan and retain affectionate ties with us as a consequence, hence leading to increased peace and stability within the region. The imposition of fees on overseas students is another example of shortsightedness on the Government's part. Support for students who show sufficient initiative to come to Australia to study at great expense and sacrifice must be given. It must be looked at as a long term investment in peace and co-operation with our region. It is a pity that the Australian National University is being forced to turn away overseas students next year from the Faculty of Economics and Commerce because that faculty has exceeded its quota. I conclude by congratulating the John Curtin School of Medical Research, which I visited on its open day, for its fascinating and highly informative displays. I commend the university for that and for the Questacon Science Centre, which is soon to become the National Science Centre. It is vital to speed up the integration of new technological ideas into the community in order to hasten our advance towards a strong, independent Australia working in close co-operation with our regional neighbours. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.45) —On behalf of Senator Chaney, I move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Government for its failure to provide an economic framework which will encourage the new investment vital to improving the prospects and living standards of all Australians. Australia is at the crossroads. We have the resources and we have the people, but we do not have a government which is capable of harnessing those assets in order to give Australia a vibrant future, and that is where the tragedy is. The motion we are debating, of which Senator Chaney gave notice yesterday, condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to provide an economic framework which will encourage the new investment vital to improving the prospects and living standards of all Australians. On Tuesday evening in Treasurer Keating's Budget Speech he said that the 1986-87 Budget provided the changes needed for a more robust, aggressive economy which could stay competitive with the rest of the world. That was supposed to be the framework, we presumed; but while it was fine rhetoric, it was hollow when one looked at the substance. The newspapers and all the other commentators have not given their judgment. The dollar is down and interest rates are rising. That is not surprising, because what does the Budget predict? It predicts higher unemployment, less investment-particularly business investment-less housing, and a continuation of balance of payments problems. In fact, this Budget is a short term strategy Budget. That is unfortunate. The Government had the opportunity last year, but it lost it. This year the Government is getting the benefit of a higher taxation revenue but it is delaying payment to pensioners. It is delaying tax relief and creating for itself an impossible situation regarding the framing of a Budget for 1987-88. In the words of our Leader, John Howard, the Australian Labor Party is now becoming a party of despair, a party of betrayed expectations, a party of sacrifice without hope. The people of Australia have now shown-it is demonstrated by the opinion polls-that because of Labor's increasing taxation they are now looking for leadership. They are looking for a party that provides hope, choice and incentive. We might well ask where the Labor Party has gone wrong. The answer lies in too much spending, particularly in the wrong direction, too much taxation, too much borrowing, and too much interference. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, such a crisis of our time requires a new policy direction. I believe that only the Liberal-National Party coalition can provide that new direction. We must overcome the perception of overseas investors and Australian business leaders that Australia today is an unattractive place in which to do business, as a capital destination, other than for lending at high interest rates. A Liberal-National Party coalition will reduce and restructure taxation, reduce government spending and reduce the regulation of business activity. It will restore the rule of law in industrial action and move towards a more flexible labour market. It will encourage a vigorous control and reduction of business impact costs, especially government costs and charges. The Government must create a climate in which business will invest. This is what the Labor Party has failed to deliver in its Budget. In 1985-86 business fixed investments declined and the outlook remains bleak. Increased investment demands confidence in the future, a confidence that the improved competitiveness, which is supposed to come from a depreciation of the dollar, will be sustained and that there is an adequate real rate of return to offset the risks involved. Studies by the Economic Planning Advisory Council show that the real rates of return are currently well below the levels of the 1960s and 1970s. The Hawke Government's accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions has given Australia higher inflation, higher labour costs and higher interest rates than those of our overseas competitors. To compound these sorts of problems we now have in place some new anti-business taxes-the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax-and an increase in the company tax rate from 46 to 49 per cent. While there are people who have millions of dollars they want to invest in Australia they are unwilling to move it out of the banks of Asia, America and Europe because while our company tax rates are rising overseas company tax rates are falling. Our company tax rates will rise three percentage points. The business outcome is that overseas money is not directed to Australian fixed business investment where it should be because there is a reduced expectation of an after-tax return. There is a further erosion of international competitiveness and that is why money is not coming into Australia. The Liberal Party will provide recovery because it seeks higher productivity. Studies around the world have demonstrated that low wages of themselves do not increase competitiveness. A good example is Indonesia, where low wages have not led to the increased competitiveness of that country. Indonesia's labour productivity is only 25 per cent of that of South Korea. What we need in Australia is not low wages and this is where the Labor Party is misconstruing the Liberal Party's philosophy. The Labor Party is trying to say: `You are the Party of low wages'. We are the Party of high living standards but what that demands is more flexible work practices with employees and employers working in unison towards common goals. Some of the revelations of the recent Robe River dispute have given some indication of the sorts of difficulties that manufacturers and mining operators and others are facing. Let me look at one or two of those difficulties because some work practices are absolutely ludicrous. Water trucks are used to suppress dust on roads and the union demands that even when it is raining these water trucks must continue operating. The berthing of a ship was delayed by unions and this cost the company $42,000. The reason for the delay was that only nine people said that six litres of milk for their shift was insufficient so they held up the ship and this cost the company $42,000. Unions have insisted that five employees must be available on site for the operation of a rail surfacing machine designed to be operated by only two people. The fee to replace a discharged fire extinguisher after hours cost the company $80 because the employee called out had to be paid for four hours at double time. Improvements in efficiency have been hampered by unions at Robe River in numerous areas. For example, blasting efficiency was held up for 18 months because the company required holes to be drilled nine metres, rather than seven metres, apart. This was something the unions could only agree to if their shift system was changed and they got increased penalty rates. Australia's lack of trading reliability is another impediment to increased trade. It always damages our country's image as a reliable supplier when shipments do not arrive, when orders are delivered late and ships are left off-shore at enormous cost. What does that do? It adds substantially to the cost of inventory holding. Our customers simply will not tolerate sloppy management and incompetent and irresponsible trade unions. Internal strikes discourage foreign investment and leave the Australian dollar less sought after in international monetary markets. Unreliability and the inadequacy of rolling stock, lack of consultation, rail strikes, coal strikes, waterfront strikes and an uncommercial approach by rail and port authorities are all examples of what problems exporters have to face. Our manufacturing industries are languishing. Manufacturers contribute only 20 per cent of our export income whereas in most developed countries they contribute about 60 per cent or more. Some of the biggest gains in reducing manufacturing costs are not to be found in the 10 per cent of direct factory employees who are in the value added category but in the 90 per cent of those costs which are in the indirect, administrative and follow on areas. No matter how efficient the direct factory processing costs might be, while we have inefficiencies in areas of moving and holding goods that result in costs of idle and slow moving inventory, Australian manufacturing will be in trouble. Australian goods do not always have to be cheaper but they have to be better in design and quality. Of course competitiveness is the degree to which a nation, under a free and fair market, can produce goods and services that must meet the rest of the international markets while simultaneously maintaining and expanding the real incomes of its citizens. Living standards are falling in Australia. The Hawke Government in its Budget has not provided the framework to lift living standards so we must all suffer. This is the theme: There is no hope; there is no choice. Unfortunately, the Hawke Labor Government identifies two economies within Australia-the domestic economy, for which it has its prescription of the accord, and the export economy, about which it says the nasty competitors, the manipulators and the money managers, cannot be controlled. This is where the Labor Party has gone wrong. Both economies are inextricably linked because all wage rises feed through this centralised wage system and affect export costs. Australia has dropped in international competitiveness with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries from twelfth to sixteenth and this ultimately finds its way through to lower standards of living. We have been locked into a scenario which is not all that different from what happened a few years ago in the Argentine. What did that country do? It fell into the trap of taxing its export industries to finance its non-exporting industries which are largely city based. Those industries were favoured by trade unions with ruinous results. It appears that Australia is now heading down the same rocky path. Unfortunately, in the last 30 years Australia has slipped from eighth to twenty-third on the world export ladder. Countries such as South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Brazil are now overtaking us. What is more, over the last decade our penetration of these markets has declined and our share of markets in the western Pacific region has fallen from 7 per cent to about 4 per cent. This is the area of greatest hope; this is the area in which Australia should be moving with its export industries but we are losing opportunities. Our rich national resources often guaranteed us a high international standard of living. However, the terms of trade have been moving against Australia in favour of exporters of high value-added manufactured goods. This is the area to which we have to devote a lot more attention. What is Labor's prescription? It is new and higher taxes. The legislation for this taxation is inadequate, with anomalies and inequities. During Question Time this afternoon, there was yet another example of Ministers giving advice contrary to that given by Taxation Office officials. The Government is imposing taxes on industries which are vital to Australia's future. As we all know, the farm-in and farm-out operations are mechanisms whereby mineral and oil explorers can minimise exploration costs. They are now subject to heinous capital gains taxes. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said: `That is not a problem because of their essentially low market values'. That opinion is contrary to that of the Taxation Office. This anti-business approach occurs in many respects. It is strange that, at a time of high unemployment when it is necessary to move resources from one area to another and when there is little labour mobility, the Labor Government has imposed a tax that discourages people from moving from one area to another. The fringe benefits tax is one example. When an employee is transferred, that tax is incurred in respect of his personal effects and luggage. Such taxes are against ordinary people. We are advised that, for example, an employer must pay a fringe benefits tax when he has to send a poor guy whose legs are crushed by a dozer to Darwin by air. That is disgraceful. Some Ministers have expressed sympathy and said that something will be done, but the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has said that there will be no changes to this tax, implying that no matter how outrageous the tax and no matter how much it is against business and the welfare of ordinary people, the taxation laws will not be amended. The Government should think again in the interests of the ordinary people whom it is supposed to represent. Much of the thrust of the Government's taxation legislation will be felt by pensioners in Labor-held electorates. Labor representatives are betraying the very people who elected them to Parliament. I support the motion, which was initiated by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), that the Government has failed to provide the framework whereby Australia can move ahead. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.03) —I support the motion that the Labor Party's policies have failed to provide a framework to encourage new investment. What we have is the end point of Labor doctrine or dogma that all that is needed to run a country is the ability to distribute income, not the ability to create it or create capital. That overlooks the fundamental point that this distribution is finite-we can only take so much. When we reach the end of the road, the chest will be empty. That is all there is to it. That is the situation that Australia has reached. I shall now attack two themes of Government propaganda. First, we have repeatedly had statements on television, in the papers and in this chamber, particularly by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, that we are at the end of 20 long years of problems. That is not true. The other theme which supports the 20-year inevitability theory is that it is not really our fault; it is the fault of everyone else in the world. It is not the fault of Australians and particularly not that of the Australian Government. No one can be blamed for our mess but the Hawke socialist Government with its big-spending, big-borrowing and high-taxing programs. It has failed to appreciate the signals manifest for the past two years, particularly in the overseas commodity markets. During the past 12 months, the United States State Department in particular told the Government that there would be an attack on the Common Market through the farm subsidy Bills and other measures and that Australia would be involved and would inevitably suffer. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, failed to appreciate what was going on. Senator Button failed also to read the signals, which were spelt out in plain language. The Government was either not able to understand the signals or too lazy or negligent to do anything about them. That is why we are in our present mess with respect to United States wheat sales and various other matters. We have failed to respond to what the Americans told us. It does us no good, once United States legislation is passed, to wring our hands, appeal to the United States President and do the other things that the Hawke Government has done. The horse has bolted by then. Given the information that the Government had, it should have moved diplomatically to intercede and to prevent the present situation. It was possible to do so. The purpose of the motion is to condemn the Government for its failure to provide an economic framework which will encourage the new investment vital to improving the prospects and living standards of all Australians. We could talk for days about that topic because the Government's faults are legion, but I want to confine my argument to two aspects-industrial relations and the Government's financial policies. The fundamental point is that, until we break the monopoly on the supply of labour by the union movement, this country will keep on going downhill until we are bankrupt and are taken over by other nations. We must break the unions' monopoly on the supply of labour. No other country gives the union movement such power and dominance and a monopoly. Like all monopolies, that monopoly is abused to the detriment of the community. We must allow competition between union and non-union labour. We must get rid of the de facto compulsory unionism which all Federal and State governments have practised. We must allow competition to arise as it does in the United States of America between union and non-union labour. We must move to a system of genuine voluntary unionism. We must bring the unions under the rule of law. We must maintain and strengthen sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act in respect of secondary boycotts. Most importantly, we must make unions responsible for their actions. If people in a union withhold services and physical or financial injury is caused to other members of the community, the injured parties must have the right to recover damages before the courts. I recognise that that can be an attractive concept, but for one point. A safety net must be provided. Any reform of industrial legislation that seeks to remove the unions' monopoly control and reduce their powers without putting something in their place to protect the employee against unprincipled employers will fail. The great majority of unionists would probably prefer not to be members of a union. They are responsible people but they maintain their union membership because they know that, at some time, that union will provide in some way an insurance policy against the unprincipled employers who always exist. In putting forward these changes in industrial relations as measures which must take place, I recognise the necessity of putting in place something that guarantees protection for the average employee against an unprincipled employer. We must get rid of the centralised wage fixing system. A centralised wage fixing system will not work for a country as vast as Australia with its varied commercial activities. Briefly, these changes can never be attacked, let alone dealt with, by a Labor government which is the creature of the union movement. So long as we have a Labor government in power in Australia federally, we are going to have the insoluble problems we have with our labour relationships and we will continue to go further and further downhill. The financial policies of the Government have resulted in the Australian dollar coming down from when it was worth $1.25 against $US1.00 under the Fraser regime to where it is now worth 60c. It will be worth 50c soon. The average person in the street does not appreciate yet what a huge shift has taken place and he does not relate it to his personal affairs, but everyone in Australia is going to suffer a fall in standard of living because our dollar is now worth only about 60c. This fall in the value of the currency is very much a result of the judgment by the international monetary community of the policies followed by the Labor Government. What is the benefit? There is no benefit in the depreciation of the price of the dollar for the average Australian. We have taken a cut in our standard of living and, unless we do something about it, that standard of living is going to go down and down. The only people who have benefited under the Labor Government have been the currency speculators and the takeover merchants. The Labor Party has pursued with ideological fervour the belief in the floating of the dollar. We have had all this doctrinal purity and ideological nonsense about letting the market forces decide the value of the dollar. The fact is that market forces do not operate absolutely with the float of the currency that has taken place in Australia. The value of the dollar has come down in broad terms simply because the overseas community does not have any confidence in the way that the Labor Government is managing the economy. It sees the high rates of taxation, the high interest rates and, above all, the crippling high rates of inflation we have suffered under Labor. The judgment of the overseas community is that the dollar is worth only 60c. On that broad background, we have had very wide fluctuations in the short term where the smart operators and the speculators have got in, and those speculators have done a great disservice to the Australian community. In one day this month we had a variation of 10 per cent in the price of our currency. If the currency is moving through a band of 10 per cent, as it was in the first week in August this year, no one has any confidence in the currency abroad. They are not prepared to invest and they are not prepared to get into commercial agreements when it is such an unstable currency. However, the Government has maintained this business of having a free market for the currency. In reality it is not a free market, it is being manipulated on the one hand by the short term speculators trying to make a profit on a daily basis, and successfully doing so, and on the other hand we have had a covert operation by the Reserve Bank of Australia trying to prop up the currency. The activities of the Reserve Bank have only been admitted to by the Government in the last couple of weeks. In fact, we have some sort of semi-controlled float or a dirty float going on. The smart thing to do is to get back to the method we had under the Fraser Government of a controlled system which moves in line with the value of the currency as it stands in the international market-place, but getting rid of the daily swings, particularly the swings of up to 10 per cent which have caused so much trouble. While I am talking about the confidence that people have in the dollar, it is interesting to see that Australians do not have much confidence in the dollar either. There were some figures in the Australian Financial Review recently which went back two years and which showed that the value of stocks and shares that Australians held overseas amounted to $217m. At the end of June this year the value was $2,361m, an increase of 1,800 per cent in the value of stocks and shares held by Australians overseas. The same article instanced the fact that while two years ago the money that Australians lent abroad was $424m, today it is $2,561m. So it is very clear that people in Australia with surplus funds have no confidence in leaving them in Australia for these people to mess around with. One of the consequences of this 60c dollar is that Australia is for sale at half price at present. It is very ironic that the ALP, which all my life has whined about the multinational corporations and the rip-off merchants in Geneva and New York, and all the rest of it, has followed policies which have brought about the situation where we are selling off the farm at a fast rate. As I said, Australia is now for sale at half price for anyone with the funds who wants to come in. It really is a bargain basement sale. One of the other great failings of the Labor Party is that its taxation policies have sent all the wrong signals to the commercial world. Whether it did this intentionally so that its friends could make money or whether it did it out of stupidity, I do not know. I am only concerned about the end result. In a country that is critically short of capital, we tax the accretion of it through things like the capital gains tax. We have the fringe benefits tax, which is a tax on entrepreneurs, private industry and small business. The fringe benefits tax in no way at all gets the big fish who are not paying income tax. They are evading it. We have a tax system which favours the takeover merchants. The ALP, of course, is very closely identified with most of the takeover merchants in Australia. A majority of those takeover merchants are just simply asset strippers. They live their lives on treadmills where they have to keep taking over companies and stripping the assets to pay the interest on their borrowings. When one looks at the Bond takeover of Castlemaine Perkins in Queensland, Mr Deputy President, a product I am sure you have had a passing acquaintance with, we had a company there which was extremely well managed. It did not have an overdraft at all. It was very profitable and it paid company tax on all its earnings. Very interestingly, it applied to take over the Swan Brewery Co. Ltd. some months before it, in turn, was taken over by the Swan Brewery. The Government blocked Castlemaine Perkins taking over Swan because it was not in the national interest, yet surprisingly, when Swan tried to take it over, it was in the national interest and Swan went ahead without any difficulty. To get back to the point, someone came along and borrowed all the money overseas to buy out the shareholders of Castlemaine, and Castlemaine will now have so many deductions in the form of interest payments that it will not pay one cent in company tax for many years to come. What is the benefit of this for Australia? Not one extra job has been created as a result of this takeover. Not one extra can of beer has been sold overseas. I had as much confidence in the former Board being able to sell Castlemaine-XXXX overseas as I have in the present bunch being able to do so. The former Board was actively developing overseas markets, but at the end of the day where have we got? We have not gained anything at all. This is the pattern of commercial life under the Labor Party. It is the takeover merchants and asset strippers who are doing very well. We are moving towards a new feudal society in Australia where we will have a collection of maybe 100 or so super rich people and the rest of us, with our savings completely valueless because of the high inflation rate and the devaluation of the currency as a result of Labor policies, will be just living on handouts. That sort of formula will inevitably create social instability and in the end, quite simply, that is the material of which revolutions are made. I do not want to see that happen to my country. The combination of these restrictive labour practices that the Labor Party in no way is attempting to cope with-indeed, it does not have the ability or the will to cope with them-and the economic policies that it is following which lead to high interest rates, high inflation and high taxation, have the consequence that no one is prepared to invest in Australia. The end point of this negative philosophy is the redistribution of income instead of the creation of income and the creation of capital. The tragedy is that Australia need not suffer that fate. It is all unnecessary. If the Government had a few intelligent and informed people making its policies, the suffering the Australian people are undergoing now and the suffering they are certainly going to experience in the years ahead, as the country goes deeper and deeper into bankruptcy, could be avoided. What do we get from Senator Walsh? What do we get from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? What do we get from the Treasurer (Mr Keating)? What do we get from Senator Button? We get exhortations that Australia must lower its sights. They tell us: `You must have a lower standard of living'. There is nothing positive, no hope that we can get on top of the problems. All we get from this Government is: `You must lower your sights, Australia. You must accept a lower standard of living today than you had yesterday, and that is all we can offer you in the future'. That is not the fate of Australia that any of us on this side of the chamber want to see. It is not our inevitable fate at all, but it is very much our fate under the present policies of this Government. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(4.21) —This Government has not attempted to find a solution to our investment problems in this Budget. It has not tried to address any of the serious structural problems hindering industry's development in Australia. This country is headed for disaster unless there is an immediate and dramatic change of government policy. The radical free marketeers have dominated the thinking of the Australian Labor Party, a party that is supposed to represent the worker and the interests of all Australians. Its free marketeer policies, its market forces policies, have brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy, but unfortunately the Government does not understand this. Just the other day I asked Senator Walsh whether he was interested in protecting Australian industry from foreign takeovers by retaining the Foreign Investment Review Board. Not only did he fail to answer that question, which bodes ill for Australian ownership, but he launched into a tirade and accused the Australian Democrats of being against foreign capital of any kind coming into this country. Senator Walsh's outburst points to the malaise of the Government's economic thinking. It is absolutely incapable of seeing any distinction between productive and unproductive investment. The Democrats have stridently opposed the funding of takeovers through the medium of foreign overseas debt. The change of ownership of a company does not necessarily make it more productive, nor does it earn us extra export income. What it does do is decrease the level of tax paid by the company concerned. Senator MacGibbon touched on that point, and I agree with much of what he said. The change of ownership very often, through the medium of foreign debt, increases the burden of servicing that debt on the community as a whole. We have to earn the foreign exchange to pay the interest on that money. This process is doing nothing but benefiting the few corporate raiders and market speculators. A very interesting study was done recently by Dr Marzouk of the Macquarie University. He investigated investment patterns in Australia and divided these investments into two areas: Productive investments, that is, investments in machinery and productive equipment; and what he called financial investments, or investments in the stock market and investments in paper profits. His findings showed that the ratio of gross domestic product to funds used for real as opposed to paper transactions had fallen from 50 per cent in 1960 to 35 per cent in 1973, to 18.3 per cent in 1984. I suggest at this point that we need look no further to see what is the real trouble in this country. It is much easier now to make money out of money than it is to make money out of investing in productive resources. This, of course, is the inevitable result of the market forces approach to economic management. For a start, if we have a market forces approach inevitably we have to have high interest rates. If we have high interest rates, and at the moment they are running at 15, 16 or 17 per cent, this means that any investment has to earn something like 20 per cent before interest and before tax to be more attractive than putting money in the bank. It is very hard to find investments that can earn 20 per cent before interest and tax. That limits the investment incentive in this country for a start. While we do have a market forces philosophy operating, we will be lumbered with high interest rates. The Democrats are not saying that foreign debt or debt financing is inherently evil. What we are saying is that it is imperative that foreign borrowings be used to restructure our economy to provide more jobs, to earn us more export income and to help us escape from the boom and bust cycles that dependence on primary exports necessarily brings. Until we face up to the problem that we are short of capital and that the capital we can attract legitimately from overseas should be directed to productive areas rather than to making money out of stock market speculations, the long term interests of the Australian people will continue to be second to the needs of a few speculators who are expanding their fortunes enormously. We have only to turn to what has happened in investments in the takeover field over the last few years to see this. In 1984, $1.2 billion was invested in takeovers; in 1985, the figure was $4.5 billion; and so far in 1986-this calendar year-$7.7 billion has been invested in defending and attacking the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd alone. Goodness knows how the year will finish up, but it will be a dramatic increase on anything we have seen before. That $7.7 billion invested in the speculation around BHP shares has not added one iota of productive capacity to this country, nor will the takeover of Nicholas Kiwi (Pacific) Pty Ltd by foreign interests, nor has the takeover of Repco, nor has the attempted takeover of Australian Consolidated Industries. They will not do anything to improve the productive capacity of Australia. Most of these takeovers have been funded by foreign money, and all Australians are now going to be asked to meet the interest commitments on that foreign borrowing. We cannot go on doing this. If we keep attracting money into the country with high interest rates we inevitably have to service that money. No overseas investor will invest in Australia unless he can see that there is a reasonable chance of getting his money back within about three years, in the present climate. So it is a very short term policy. We attract money but within three years we not only have to pay all that money back but for the rest of all time we have to meet the interest commitment, or the servicing commitment, on that investment in this country. In other words, foreign owned companies send dividends outside the country, they do not put money into circulation within Australia. Senator Michael Baume —What would have happened to the Australian dollar if the money had not come in? Senator SIDDONS —The Australian dollar was held at reasonable levels until quite recently. As a matter of fact, Senator MacGibbon made a very cogent point on this. Our Australian assets are now for sale at half price, and now the Government is presumably going to disband the Foreign Investment Review Board. The Government is saying: `We have a low dollar but please come in, please bring your capital in here and buy up whatever of the farm is left. We could not care less. We must have foreign capital at any cost'. Senator Michael Baume —You are genuinely fair dinkum? You really don't understand? Senator SIDDONS —I am simply saying that while we have a market forces economy investment will flow into areas that are unproductive, and we cannot afford to have that happen. It is not foreign to Liberal Party philosophy for governments to interfere in the way the economy should be managed. The economy was managed very effectively by the Menzies Government in 1952. Our fundamental problem today is not that the economy is not working well internally; our problem is the current account, in that we are not able to pay for the imports flowing into the country. What has the Government done? It has brought down an austerity Budget which will squeeze the whole economy and will inevitably send the economy into a tailspin, simply to solve a problem which relates purely to our balance of trade. There are other ways of solving that problem. We could restrict imports by whatever means is appropriate; that is, handle the problem directly. If we wanted to, we could manage the Australian dollar. It was managed successfully for many years. Why should we allow international speculators to do what they like with our currency? It we wish, we can regulate to some degree the flows of capital in and out of this country by a variety of mechanisms. I am suggesting simply that the Government should manage the economy. One of the big myths about the market forces economy is that it is essential to cut back on Government expenditure to make room for private sector investment. That is exactly what the Government is trying to do right now. If we look at the figures, we find something very interesting. The Government debt right now is very low by historical comparisons. In the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s the total Government debt in Australia was equal to well over 100 per cent of our gross domestic product and today it is down to about 44 per cent of our gross domestic product. So the problem is not Government expenditure; the problem is that the private investment is going into unproductive areas which means that it is not giving a return to the Australian people. By and large it seems to me that we have to change direction and we have to do it very quickly if we are to avoid an absolute disaster in this country. This disaster will not be avoided until the Government drops its free market ideology and takes responsibility for the development of industry. The Government must put in place the mechanisms to encourage productive investment and to discourage speculation. Until that is done Australia will continue to decline and our problems will only become worse and worse. We have to attack the fundamental problem. For many years we have been attracting foreign capital to Australia and have been selling out the farm, but that has not worked so there has to be a change of direction. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.33) —I support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), which states: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Government for its failure to provide an economic framework which will encourage the new investment vital to improving the prospects and living standards of all Australians. Before proceeding to deal with that motion in detail, I will deal with one point made by Senator Siddons in his very old-fashioned, interventionist, father knows best, playing God approach to the Australian economy. Senator Siddons appears to forget that when we are running a current account deficit of $14 billion a year we have to pay for it. Money has to come from somewhere and do something. It is all very well saying that if that money comes in for some specific purposes it is somehow disgraceful that interest should have to be paid on it, but that omits to recognise the vital point that that money has to come in anyway and do something and someone will have to pay interest on it. We are running such a massive debt and have such a huge imbalance and are structurally in bad shape mainly as a result of inappropriate Government big spending policies at a time when the Government should have been cutting back and we were warning it that it should have been cutting back. For example, this Budget, at least in terms of its paper result, should have been the Budget of one or two years ago, as we were recommending, rather than the Budget of this year. It is now too little too late and too phoney. It is distressing that Senator Siddons, in his argument against the free flow of market forces allowing this money to come in for whatever purpose, omitted to mention that that money would have had to come in anyway and do something and have interest paid on it simply to pay for the current account deficit we are running. Where does Senator Siddons think the money will come from and go to? When we have the structural imbalance that has been created by this incompetent and irresponsible Government, we have to have money coming in to service it. Senator Siddons —We could start buying less overseas. That would be a start, wouldn't it? Senator Walsh —What was the current account deficit in 1981-82, Patrick? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Siddons said, it could be controlled. That brings me to the essential point, rather than the matter being raised by the Minister for gutters. The essential point is that if we start imposing controls, as Senator Siddons wants to do, we will in fact do exactly what we are concerned about in this motion; that is, we will destroy the environment for investment. Let us look at what is seen by the Government to be the sort of thing that should happen. I quote from the Budget Speech of the Minister for bananas. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) said-- Senator Durack —He does not even know what's in his own legislation. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is right. The Treasurer said: As a nation . . . we need to invest more and consume less. That is the strong, exciting rallying cry from the Treasurer. He said: In other words, we must save for the future rather than spend for the present. As usual, the rhetoric is magnificent but the performance is appalling. We need to invest more and consume less. What will happen as a result of this Budget? Are we going to invest more? Not on your nelly, not according to the Treasury in statement No. 2, which states that investment will fall this year as a result of this so-called dynamic, efficient and effective Budget. This Budget is a hoax. On the very fundamentals, the vital things the Treasurer himself says must happen-we need to invest more-there will be a fall in investment. In fact, we will invest less. The Treasurer said that we must save for the future rather than spend for the present. What in fact will happen to saving? The savings ratio will fall this year. Strike two to the world's greatest Treasurer. On his own criteria this Budget is a failure, but it is a failure on far stronger grounds than that. We cannot really take the world's greatest Treasurer to be an authority on these matters any more. Let us look at three essential points which will indicate what will happen to us in the future. We have seen already that there will be falling investment this year. In other words, our capacity to replace imports by investing in new plant and equipment and to provide new jobs for people will fall as a result of this Budget. If one were a foreign lender would one be enthralled about lending more money to Australia when one knows that investment will be down and Australia's capacity to get itself out of trouble will be diminished? If we do not invest and produce more, what are our prospects of resolving the fundamental problems, the fundamental hole that the Government has pushed us into? What will happen to inflation rates as a result of this Budget? Let us look at comparative inflation rates. Inflation rates are the essential element in terms of us maintaining any competitive advantage we tried to get from devaluation which Mr Keating said would flow through the J-curve. He is pretty quiet about the J-curve. It is not even an L-curve now, it is an ever declining straight line. Senator Puplick —It is not even an S-bend. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It is not even an S-bend, it is going straight down the gurgle hole. Australia has the highest inflation rate, approximately four times that of most of our major trading partners and eight times that of our more sophisticated trading partners. We are going steadily downhill following this `great', `wonderful' Budget which is supposed to fix things. We are presenting an even worse environment for investment in Australia because our inflation rate will steadily erode the competitive benefits bought at the extraordinarily huge cost of continuing devaluations which are due to this Government's incompetence. Let us look at the last of the three disasters affecting the investment climate-the continuing disaster on our current account. It looks like being even more than this year's adjusted $13.7 billion deficit-a rate, by the way, of about $26,000 a minute. Under this Government, Australia has been going broke at the rate of $26,000 a minute as this Government has fiddled and come up with a phoney budget at a time when we are in real crisis. It will be worse next year according to the Budget Papers. What on earth would encourage either Australians to invest or foreigners to invest in Australia when the three fundamental elements on which our recovery-if any-must be based are steadily going bad, with no sign this year of improvement and with this Budget admitting that the Government is pushing Australia into recession because it has not responded quickly enough? Because of the Government's activities the atmosphere and the environment for investment have obviously been damaged-one hopes not beyond repair, but they have been damaged massively. It is clear that the Government got something like the right deficit number to try to provide some incentive for people to invest, for foreigners to bring their money here, for Australians to invest here and for the Australian economy to rise again from the ashes into which the fiddling of the Government opposite and the burning of Rome have led us. The Government got the right number, but in the wrong way. It got the right deficit number of about $3.5 billion, but not by cutting its spending. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), as usual, was monumentally incompetent. There is no cut in real terms this year in government spending. It will increase despite all the hype and propaganda. After government spending this year is adjusted for inflation, it is higher than it was last year. In money terms it is up about 6.9 per cent, and it is slightly up in real terms after adjustment for inflation. We have not seen that fact in the headlines around the place. So `efficient' and `effective' were the Minister for Finance's cuts that government spending is still higher than it was last year. If we had had genuine spending cuts, this Budget would have been far more effective. It would have created a better environment for recovery. Instead, we have had a Budget that adds to the costs of the one sector that can save us-the business sector-the investment sector, the productive sector, the sector which has to try to replace imports or try to invest to produce greater exports. Instead of providing assistance the Government has added $1.5 billion in new taxes mainly to this very sector on which our recovery depends. That is the way to provide incentives for investment! It is the level of the intelligent approach that this Government has to solving our fundamental problems. The reality is that taxes are now being lifted by $6.5 billion overall. That is an 11 per cent increase in taxes, of which $1.5 billion is in totally new taxes that are deliberately belting the productive sector. The fuel excise hits farmers who are desperately struggling to export. It hits all productive areas, particularly the costs of transporting items to market to try to sell them. It affects the whole cost structure. As I said, these taxes are up by 11 per cent to their highest level ever. At 25.5 per cent of gross domestic product that also forms a record, as does total revenue. Mr Keating is maintaining at least one record and that is of being Australia's highest taxing Treasurer ever. We have a Treasurer who, even when presenting the rhetoric of restraint, the appearance of rectitude, the hype and propaganda of cuts, is increasing both spending and taxing. We can say: `Yes, but the result has been that he has solved the public sector borrowing requirement problem. He has cut the demand that the Government will have on supply of funds for the private sector'. That is quite true. Demand by the Government will be minimal this year. It is very fortunate that it should be. There should not be excessive governmental pressure on interest rates or any scramble in the market for money to provide for the reduced volume of people, with a reduced volume of investment, who may want to invest. That sounds significant, except that there are two catches. They totally overwhelm any benefits that might have come to the Government as a result of papering over this problem. One of the ways that it has papered over the problem is by converting some of our assets of foreign exchange, which have appreciated in value because of the devaluation, into revenue of $2.8 billion this year to dress up the deficit, to make it look better. We have heard from Senator Walsh how dreadful it is that some people convert revenue into assets and that it is pretty crooked of them to do so. What about this Government that converts assets into revenue to dress up a document and give the appearance of respectability to a Budget which is knocking the hell out of investment? What else is the Government doing? It solved its deficit problem by putting all the money offshore, plus $800m. It has created an internal surplus to totally remove any pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement, but it has transferred the problem offshore. We have to service this. As the Budget Papers say, something like 80 per cent of the external deficit which this Government has created of well over $4 billion requires foreign currency. We are in a serious foreign exchange crisis. This Government worsens it to window-dress its Budget internally. That is a typical example of total irresponsibility from this Government. That money has to be serviced. That total amount of well over $4 billion is more than double the highest figure ever under the previous Government, to which Senator Walsh keeps referring. We not only have the little problem of worsening our basic situation externally by transferring the problem overseas; we also have the ludicrous situation in which interest rates will now be dominated not by the public sector borrowing requirement or pressures within our internal market but by the fact that we will continue to go broke at the rate of $14 billion-plus a year on our current account. We still have to pay for that by attracting money from overseas. It would not matter a damn what the local demand for funds was. We have to provide a sufficiently high interest differential to attract money from overseas. Senator Walsh ought at last to know about this interest differential because he made a fool of himself over the cost of foreign exchange cover last year when I tackled him about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. At least the Minister for Finance now understands what interest rate differentials between Australia and overseas are. Our continuing current account crisis will require Australia to have an interest rate differential above that of major potential lending countries, particularly the United States. Any prospect of getting our interest rates down will depend entirely on what happens to interest rates overseas. If they fall overseas, they will fall relatively in Australia. But they will still maintain a large differential because we need to attract the money to pay for our continuing deficit. In other words-and I conclude on this point-on every ground that is fundamental to Australia's future, that is fundamental to providing an environment for investment, this Budget has not improved the situation; it has worsened it. This Government stands condemned for once again imposing an impossible situation on Australian business by hitting it with taxes rather than having the self-discipline to control its own spending, which, as I said, is to increase. Once again this Government is responsible for the disasters facing Australia this financial year. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(4.51) —I support the motion put in place by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, which states: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Government for its failure to provide an economic framework which will encourage the new investment vital to improving the prospects and living standards of all Australians. After the last four years of government by the Australian Labor Party no one would seriously argue that the living standards of all Australians have not fallen. They have fallen significantly right across the board. Business confidence is lacking, demand is lacking, taxes are high, interest rates are high. All this going into the fourth Budget of the Labor Government. The headline in the Australian says it all: `Budget: dollar down, interest rates increase'. That is what the world thinks of the fourth Budget the Labor Party has brought down. I am not an eminent economist, but I have been in business for 18 years and it seems very obvious to me that if we increase taxes by $1.5 billion we will slow down demand, reduce employment prospects, and ultimately, as plain as night follows day, increase unemployment and face the same old treadmill. The Budget had absolutely nothing in it for small business. When America faced a financial crisis, small business worked its way out of it. Small business would be able to do the same in Australia if it were allowed to prosper and grow. Small business employs 60 per cent of the work force of Australia. It pays the majority of taxes and employs the majority of people; yet it is being stifled by high taxes and by all the impediments that have been placed on it over the last four years. I could run through a long list of those impediments but I will mention just a few. There is the capital gains tax, the prescribed payments, and industrial democracy, which the Labor Government has not brought forward but which is on the menu. Significant amounts of money have been spent on research into industrial democracy. There is no doubt that it is a plank of the Labor Party platform and at an appropriate time will be brought forward. I mention also the 3 per cent productivity claim for superannuation, and redundancy payments. I can go on and on. It is no wonder people are terrified to invest in Australia. It is a country that has all the natural resources, everything going for it; yet we find ourselves being told to lower our aims and expectations, and to reduce the standard of living that we have enjoyed over a significant number of years. Since the Whitlam Government we have fallen from about number three on the world standard of living scale to about 21. As a nation that has everything going for it we should be able to maintain our standard of living if people have confidence, but how can people have confidence when every time they are prepared to invest in the market, in employing people, in machinery, they get an extra tax or obstruction placed in their way? Senator Watson —Especially the capital gains tax. Senator BOSWELL —I have mentioned the capital gains tax. In the 10-week recess I visited previous clients of mine in the hardware industry in Queensland whom I have serviced for over 18 years in my business. I recommend that every honourable senator get out and see what is happening. I was absolutely alarmed as I did not realise the situation was as bad as it is out there. I talked to real estate agents and to social workers. Most people in the business area told me that sales were down by between 25 and 30 per cent. Most people said that they were just holding the line. Real estate agents told me that there was a tremendous tragedy in the community because people had bought $60,000 houses but could not sustain the interest payments and were trying to trade back to $40,000 houses, thus losing between $20,000 and $30,000. Yet this Budget has done nothing to address the problems. When taxes are raised to the level of $1.5 billion I cannot see any hope for improvement in the situation. I understand what the Government is trying to do. It is trying to reduce the deficit, but it is doing it, as a number of speakers have said, by increasing taxes instead of reducing government spending. This will not lead to a recovery in the business sector. It will not lead to an increase in employment. It may lead ultimately, in the long term, to slightly reduced interest rates, which will be commendable if achieved. It is obvious from labour costs that we will continue to be uncompetitive with our trading partners. Our interest rates are higher than theirs. Our inflation rate is higher. I will read into Hansard some consumer price index figures to compare Australia with our overseas trading partners. It is interesting to note that Australia has a figure of plus 8.4 per cent, West Germany, minus 0.05 per cent; Japan, plus 0.8 per cent; the United Kingdom, plus 3.8 per cent; and the United States of America, plus 1.7 per cent. Unless we can get the consumer price index down in line with our overseas competitors there is really no hope on the horizon that things will improve. We should also look at interest rates. In Australia the prime lending rate is 17.5 per cent for borrowers. In West Germany it is 7 per cent, Japan, 4.13 per cent; and the USA, 8 per cent. When we look at those two sets of figures, it is apparent that Australia will not be able to compete unless we attack the fundamental wage structure. Over the last year labour costs have increased by around 11 per cent or 12 per cent. Currently there is a wage case for a 2.3 per cent increase. There is a productivity claim current which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has walked away from and left for the industrial jungle to sort out. No doubt we will see the superannuation claim filtering through into many industries. There is a 4 per cent wage claim set for October-November and another 3 per cent claim for April-May. We must recognise that, even though the Government is prepared to discount those wage claims when it takes its cases before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, even if those wage claims are discounted by 2 per cent, that will still not bring us into a competitive phase with our overseas trading partners. Unless we can get that wage structure down, unless we can get our cost-price index and our interest rates down, then- Senator Walsh —Who wrote that rubbish for you? Senator BOSWELL —I am standing here in this chamber as a person who has done research on this subject, as a person who has been in business for 18 years, as a person who has gone out over the last 10 weeks and sought some answers to the problems that are besetting this country. Senator Walsh —Who wrote that rubbish for you? Senator BOSWELL —I wrote it myself. These are my thoughts that I am putting on behalf of the people I represent in Queensland. I think most people would agree with them. Senator Walsh —You represent sheep and cattle mostly, don't you? Senator BOSWELL —The National Party received 30 per cent of the Senate vote in Queensland, which is a significant vote. As I said, these are the prospects that face Australia. Unless we can pull wage costs down into line with those of our overseas competition this country probably will fall from twenty-first place in living standards to an even worse position. I take note of what Senator MacGibbon and Senator Siddons said and I believe that that has to be investigated also. I believe that competitiveness is lacking in the Australian economy. There has been one takeover after another in the retail section. When manufacturers go to sell their products they find that 85 to 90 per cent of their business is coming from four or five accounts. Those four or five accounts have massive buying power, and the discounts they are asking the manufacturers to pay, the television advertising allowances and so on that are required, are squeezing manufacturers' profits to a very marginal rate. That is another problem that has to be addressed by this Parliament and, as far as I know, it is one that has not been raised before. However, it is a very fundamental reason why profits are down. I support the motion moved on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and commend it to the Senate. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.05) —I too rise to support very strongly the motion moved by Senator Watson on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). The motion states: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Government for its failure to provide an economic framework which will encourage the new investment vital to improving the prospects and living standards of all Australians. The Government had a golden opportunity in its Budget this week to provide leadership, honesty and consistency in its economic management and to give a lead to all Australians. It failed dismally on all those counts. It failed to provide leadership. The Budget lacks direction, it lacks purpose, it lacks cohesion. It lacks any sense of giving to Australians the feeling that the Government knows where it is going and where Australia as a nation should be going. The Budget lacks honesty because its underlying assumptions are so rubbery as to be downright shonky. Much of the Budget estimates are predicated on a growth in our gross domestic product for 1986-87 of 2 1/4 per cent, made up of an increase in non-farm gross domestic product of 2 1/2 per cent and a fall in farm GDP of a similar amount. The prospect of getting in Australia in the year ahead, indeed between now and June 1987, an overall growth in GDP of 2 1/4 per cent is so slight as to make the Budget estimates quite unbelievable. We have now had three quarters of nil or negative growth in Australia. The Government has predicated its whole economic strategy in this Budget on the expectation that suddenly that negative growth will turn around and grow at a reasonably healthy rate between now and June 1987. There is not one fundamental underlying economic reason why that should be so. Because the growth estimates are far too optimistic, the Government's revenue estimates cannot be relied on. They too are far too high. Even if we accepted the Government's revenue estimates, this Government would still be the highest taxing government in Australia's history when we consider taxes as a proportion of our national output. On the expenditure side too, it can be seen that many of the figures are highly dubious. For example, the figures for unemployment benefit expenditure are predicated on an increase in unemployment which appears to be far too low, even given the Government's own growth estimates. Those revenue estimates are too low. However, even if both the revenue and expenditure estimates were accurate, we would still have a higher proportion of outlays, certainly in the case of expenditure to gross domestic product, than was the case not only in each of the seven years of the Fraser Government but also in each of the three years of the Whitlam Government. Many people in Australia do not realise that we have for a decade now lived in the shadow of the great economic crisis the Whitlam Government brought upon this nation as a result of the extravagant, wilful and enormously rapid rate of increase in government spending as a proportion of our national output. Despite what the Hawke Government has said about revenue restraint, in each of its four Budgets it has had a higher proportion of expenditure to national output than did the Whitlam Government in any of its three years. The other thing that is very shonky in relation to the estimates for the forthcoming year-this is a matter on which I tackled Senator Walsh in Question Time today and about which he completely failed to give an answer-is the value of the Australian dollar over the next 12 months. The Budget estimates forecast that the trade weighted index, that is, the overall value of the Australian dollar, between now and 30 June 1987 will be 52. On the day on which the Budget was delivered the trade weighted index for the Australian dollar was 51.5. The Budget estimates forecast a slight strengthening in the value of the Australian dollar against the currencies of other countries. On the day after the Budget the trade weighted index fell by 2 per cent to 50.5. How could the Government forecast and predicate its Budget estimates on a trade weighted index of 52 when it accepts-it is stated publicly in the Budget documents-that inflation will run at 8 per cent? I think that is too low but, even if one accepts the Budget's figure of 8 per cent, that still shows that there is an acceptance by the Government that inflation in this country in 1986-87 will be at least four times higher than that of our major trading partners. Also the Government has stated in the Budget Papers that it has accepted that the current account deficit, which is the real achilles heel of the Australian economy and which has caused this nation's crisis, will show no improvement in this financial year. According to the Government's estimates, it may even worsen slightly. How on earth can we have a maintenance of the value of the Australian dollar under those two circumstances? The only way in which we can have it is on the assumption that there will be another massive rise in interest rates to attract capital here to balance our external books. If the interest rate increase does not occur, the value of the Australian dollar must fall in the total environment. If that happens, the implications for the whole of the Budget estimates and the whole of the economic strategy on which this Budget is based fall to the ground. I repeat that today the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) failed completely to provide an answer. He said that the figure of 52 for the trade weighted index was a matter of judgment. What a thing to say when that figure is a key element in the planning of the whole economic strategy for this nation for the year ahead. There are many other rubbery figures that I could mention, but overall suffice it to say again that this Budget will be the highest taxing Budget in our history. It has major weaknesses in its restraint of spending, despite that elusive looking, deceptive figure of zero growth in real spending. Much of that has been arrived at simply by a deferment rather than a cancellation of expenditure. Not one government program, to my knowledge, has been eliminated. The only way in which we will get a realistic approach to spending by a national government is to look at all the programs and get rid of the ones that the government has no right to have. This Government has not done that in this Budget; it has simply tinkered at the edges. This is not the Budget that Australia needs in 1986. As a nation we desperately need a Budget which would involve less taxation. This Budget has introduced new taxes totalling, across a wide range, $1.5 billion to $2 billion. We need less spending than will occur under this Budget. We need lower interest rates, but the Government's strategy looks as though it will inevitably force up interest rates. We need lower inflation, not a Budget that imposes additional costs which will increase inflation. We need a stimulus to investment, and that is where I come back to the main thrust of the motion that is before the Senate. In Budget Paper No. 2 it is noted that a higher living standard for Australians can be achieved only by an improvement in Australia's external account which crucially depends upon substantial new investment, especially in the traded goods sector. That is a statement with which I and the Opposition totally agree; it is one at which one could not take exception. It is only if there is an increase in business investment that Australia will be able to achieve the necessary growth in production of goods for export and production of goods as substitution for imports. Yet the Treasury is predicting that private investment will fall in 1986-87 from its already abysmally low level. I note that in today's Press the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is reported as saying that he does not expect investment to fall by one per cent, by which he said it would fall according to the Budget documents that were released 48 hours ago. How can we believe what this Government is saying in terms of some of the fundamentals on which its economic strategy is supposed to be based when, within 48 hours of delivering the Budget Speech in which the Treasurer presented a crucial investment forecast, he is now saying that he does not think that forecast is right? If that is not rubbery figuring, if that is not the sort of statement that is designed-if not deliberately, it certainly has this effect-to undermine completely the confidence of the business sector in this country I do not know what is. If members of the Government were to talk to members of that business sector, be they in small business, large business, primary, secondary or tertiary industry, they would find that these people have completely lost confidence in this Government. That is a result of the performance of this Government, which has been trying dishonestly to present to the Australian people rubbery figures in key documents and events such as this Budget. Given recognition of the vital role that investment is required to play in restoring the living standards of all Australians, it is quite remark- able that this Budget does nothing at all to stimulate investment. Indeed, it is likely that the measures contained in the Budget will positively discourage investment in the coming year, particularly through the cost increases imposed in a variety of ways, including a wide range of increased taxation. In other words, the Government has failed to address the fundamental reasons for reduced levels of investment in Australia. Economic recovery in this country will be achieved only if due attention is paid to four major areas, which are: Firstly, reduced and restructured taxes made possible by reduced government spending; secondly, reduced and less costly regulation of business activity; thirdly, the restoration of the rule of law in industrial relations and a flexible labour market; and, fourthly, rigorous control and reduction of business input costs, especially government taxes and charges. Those four key areas have been identified and tackled by the Opposition in its policy document Policies for Business which was released at the Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia a month ago. It has been quite rightly and widely acclaimed by the business sector because it offers hope, certainty, incentive, a way for Australia to get ahead and a reason to invest in Australia. On all those counts this Government has failed completely to deliver. The phoney restraint in the Budget that was delivered on Tuesday night comes hot on the heels of a four-year spending binge which has nearly doubled the Federal Budget outlays and which has added nearly $50 billion to the public debt of this nation. At first glance it seems that the Australian Labor Party has finally seen the writing on the wall and turned to responsible economic management, with a zero real increase in spending and a deficit of $3.5 billion. On the face of it they are both good figures but, as the falls in the value of the Australian dollar since the Budget was delivered indicate, the market at least and, increasingly, average Australians have woken up to the tricks that the Treasurer employed in delivering this Budget. It was a Budget done by mirrors. When one looks behind the mirrors one finds that there is little or no substance in the major figures. As I have already mentioned, closer examination shows clearly that assumptions on which the forecasts of government spending and revenue are based are quite out of kilter with fact and with fundamentals of the Australian economy. In particular-I repeat it because it is so fundamental to the whole Budget and economic scenario-the growth forecast of 2 1/4 per cent is over-optimistic. That figure is made up by the Government anticipating that external demand will increase by 1.75 per cent and that domestic demand will increase by half a per cent-0.5 per cent. Yet, given increasing inflation, high and inevitably increasing real interest rates and our present and continuing current account deficit of $14 billion or more, it is highly unlikely that Australia will be able to lift its net export performance by anything like 1.75 per cent or that domestic demand will increase by half a per cent, given that the requisite production of goods and services to replace imports will not occur. At the end of Budget statement No. 2 it states: . . . it will necessarily take some time to effect the required correction in the external accounts. A close reading of the Budget Papers leads to the conclusion that if this Government continues to pursue policies of this type it will be a very long time indeed, if at all, before we are able to steer the economy back on to the right track. It is ironic-tragic would perhaps be a better word-that the Government has implemented policies which will increase inflation by more than its own prediction of 8 per cent, and at the very least maintain, but more likely increase, the already high real interest rates and so discourage investment, in turn discouraging and setting back the prospect of economic recovery. It is even more ironic that the Government has neglected to implement measures that will encourage the restructuring of Australia's economy, which is vital to economic recovery. Improved economic performance depends upon the ability of our producers to make goods at prices at which they can compete on international markets. This requires that the costs involved in producing those goods are reduced. Yet, as I have said, several measures in the Budget militate against a reduction of costs for Australian producers. Indirect taxes, estimated to add $1,400m alone to the Government's coffers, will increase costs for all Australian producers. For example, petrol, an essential input for most industries, is to be taxed yet again. I am not sure whether the Australian public is yet aware that the 3c per litre hike in fuel excise will drive up the price of petrol to an average of 53c per litre. All in all, this year alone petrol taxes have risen by nearly 14c a litre, from 10c a litre to 23.8c a litre. That is an increase in this year alone of 140 per cent. On top of that, the Budget estimates show that the anticipated increase in revenue from petrol taxes in 1986-87 will be 96 per cent greater than in 1985-86. The swag of anti-business taxes, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, did not even rate a mention in Tuesday night's Budget. Rather than attempt to reduce the burden of tax on business, this Government has ignored its responsibility to provide incentive for business to invest. As a percentage of gross domestic product, taxation, as I said earlier, will be at a record level-almost 26 per cent. For the second successive year this hike in taxation breaks the taxation promise of the Government's trilogy commitment. For two years in a row-the first two years of its three-year trilogy commitment-the Government has broken the Prime Minister's sacred promise and, with a blatant disregard for honesty, the Treasurer on Tuesday night even failed to mention that the promise was broken in 1985-86. It was only when one looked at the fine print of the accompanying statements that one saw it. There was not one mention of it. Tuesday night's Budget contained no announcements regarding the reduction of the costly plethora of regulations on business activity. This increasingly onerous burden for business has recently been estimated by the Government's own Business Regulation Review Unit to cost the Australian community between $40 billion and $80 billion annually-an absolutely staggering burden on our economy. The disastrous impact that Government regulation has on business activity and levels of investment is experienced by a myriad of businesses in Australia. We all know of numerous examples. On the third major area crying out for attention, namely wage fixation and industrial relations, the Government has also failed totally to bite the bullet. On page 55 of Budget Paper No. 1 it is stated: If adequate profitability is to be achieved, additional restraint needs to be placed on labour costs. I completely agree with that statement. It is clear evidence, too, that the Government is aware of the link between profitability and investment and labour costs. Yet, in the same section of the Budget Papers, the Government indicates that it will restrain wages only by supporting a 2 per cent discount to account for the effects of devaluation. That is, quite frankly, not tough enough. It ignores the inflationary effects of its own domestic policies, such as increases in indirect taxes. It ignores the fact that the consumer price index does not measure everything that is imported, such as business machinery. It ignores the increases in other significant costs, such as postal and telephone charges. Most important of all, it ignores what is happening in the rest of the world. It ignores the fact that Australia has to be internationally competitive. It ignores that fact that price inflation in Australia is continuing to price us out of world markets. It also ignores the urgent need the nation has to lift the level of our productivity. The question of productivity increases is a very wide ranging and very difficult area. It is an area to which we as a nation will have to give much more attention. There has to be a much greater community understanding of what is meant by productivity drive in Australia. We have to start getting on with that job. This Government has failed and is failing completely to do that. It is ironic that on the one hand the Government is pinning its hopes for economic recovery on increasing levels of investment in and, therefore, production by Australia's manufacturing sector but, on the other hand, Australia's record on the wages front in that sector has been depressing and promises to be even more so as wages increase, regardless of the capacity of business to pay. Wages in Australia in the last two years in the manufacturing area rose by almost 15 per cent, which is more than double the increase which occurred in the United States, Canada and West Germany, and almost double that of our major trading partner, Japan. When wage-related costs are included, our record pales even more in comparison with that of our trading partners. The Budget Papers show the Government's unwillingness to attack the fundamental rigidities of the labour market. By reaffirming its commitment to the centralised wage fixing system and the accord, the Government has ensured wage increases regardless of the capacity of individual businesses to pay and regardless of what it has done in the area of discounting. One of the so-called achievements of the deal between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions-namely, the prices and income accord-is that it has resulted, so the Government says, in wage restraint and the lowest level of industrial disputation in Australia for 17 years. There has been an alarming rise in the use of the backdoor method of increasing wages, that is, through on-costs, thereby leading to declining levels of recorded industrial disputation. But the two factors must be looked at together. It is a myth to believe that the Australian experience of declining levels in industrial disputation is unique. For example, over the past four years there has been a world-wide decline in industrial disputation in Western democracies. Between 1981 and 1985 time lost through industrial disputation fell in the United States and Canada by 60 per cent, it fell in West Germany and Italy by 80 per cent, and even in France it fell by 50 per cent. Given that those countries have no centralised wage fixation system or anything resembling our accord, it is absurd to argue that it is the accord which has been responsible for the decline in recorded strike activity. We simply have to do better on all of these fronts. No wonder the new investment needed to get Australia going again, to make us more productive and to improve our competitiveness is not forthcoming. Our potential is very great if we can get our act together. The Government has failed to provide the leadership, direction and purpose to encourage investment, to make investors, and consumers for that matter, confident in our future. For that failure this Government stands condemned. Therefore, I trust that the Senate will fully support the motion now before it. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(5.31) —I am bringing up the tail in this debate, which is about the failure of the economic performance of this Government. The Government is now locked into a collision course with economic disaster. All governments stand or fall on their economic policies, and this Government had a chance to rectify the situation when it announced its Budget this week. The whole country was prepared for the Government to take the hard decisions. We had listened to all of the announcements from both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) telling us that they would knuckle down and take the hard decisions. But when it came to the announcement it turned out that they had not done so. There was a little kick-up in international confidence about the country and its prospects, but that lasted about an hour. Once overseas countries had a good look at what the Government intended to do here, they immediately sank back into their lack of confidence. However, the lack of confidence is not only overseas but also within this country, because it became obvious almost immediately that the Government intended to increase taxes and to increase its own spending. Even taking into account the moderate cuts to a few areas, the overall effect of the Budget is that the Government will spend a lot more than it did last year. We have heard a lot about the much vaunted wages accord, extolled by the Treasurer as well as the Prime Minister and the economic spokesman in this place. It started as a mirage but it has now turned into a chimera. Even at this stage the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, their feet planted firmly in mid air, are intending to march steadily forward clinging to an accord that is hardly there any more. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, which met in Melbourne yesterday, expressed its doubts at the Government's ability to maintain its wages policy. However, it is not just the ACTU that is expressing its doubts. Labor Premiers around the country are crying out for this Government to do something about the high tax policies that it is instituting. They are well aware of the lack of popularity of certain of the taxes, particularly the fringe benefits tax, and they are asking the Government to do something about them. With great fanfare the Prime Minister announced the floating of the dollar. He was more for free enterprise than the conservative parties in Australia. He really had what is known in the business as a dirty float. He floated the dollar only against the American dollar. He did not float it against all of the other currencies. For a while things looked well for the dollar, although it was going down, simply because the American dollar was going down all the time. However, compared with other currencies such as the pound sterling, the deutschemark and the yen, our dollar was showing a much worse performance than it was against the American dollar. When the Prime Minister tacked his colours to the mast and announced his decision on the MX missile, immediately our trading partners lost confidence in this country and the dollar started to plummet. Our overseas debt is mounting. One of the most startling figures I heard during the debate this afternoon was that we are going down the gurgler to the tune of $26,000 a minute. I was trying to calculate just how far down the gurgler we had gone during this debate. A figure amounting to as much money as a chap would earn in a year is being lost every minute by the Government. I found that startling. The die is cast. Taxes have been increased; the tax cuts have been deferred. Let us compare that with what is happening in, say the United States, which also has a record deficit. The US policy is for personal income tax cuts; it is cutting personal income tax to around 15 per cent. That will create an enormous boom almost immediately, and the United States will take off while Australia keeps going down the tube because we do not have the incentive to work. Senator Button —That is not what the economic forecasters say in the United States. You know that. Senator SHEIL —The Leader of the Government in the Senate interrupts. Let me explain it simply to him. Anything the Government wants less of it taxes; anything it wants more of it subsidises. If it wants less work and less profitability and less success in the country-tax it. That is what the Government is doing. It is taxing the incentive out of anybody who wants to earn a profit, make a success and make the country a success. Interest rates are going up. Increased unemployment will be one of the results of this Budget. Of course, when the unemployed go on the dole, the Government's expenditure will be increased, and that will feed back into higher inflation. The Government is heaping problem upon problem on itself and it cannot recover from its present situation. It is headed for disaster, and I think people now know about this and are concerned about it. There is a loss of confidence in the country, and hence this motion has been moved in the Senate today. The fact that sales taxes have risen will increase costs for every pensioner. They get no relief from sales tax; they have to buy on the ordinary open market. Pension rises have been deferred, and so with the increase in sales taxes pensioners will be a lot worse off. One item that has not been mentioned in the debate this afternoon-I mention it now only briefly because I will deal with it in greater detail when I speak on the Budget-is the continuation of Medicare and bulk billing. This has locked us into another situation which is bleeding the country white; it is encouraging over utilisation and overservicing. Medicare now has a nickname in the community. It is called Mediqueue, because of the huge queues that are being created around the country as a result of not only bulk billing-hordes of people are encouraged to see medical practitioners plus there is the new entrepreneurial medicine-but also the shortages of beds and nurses. Literally thousands of beds are missing from the number required in Australia today. Thus there are huge delays for operative surgery that should be planned, there is nursing unrest, and doctors are pulling out en bloc from bulk billing in various areas of the country. Just recently in my area of the Gold Coast doctors decided to cut out bulk billing, and I think we will see more of this. The Government should realise that what it has planned with Medicare is an economic disaster. It has nothing whatsoever to do with health; it has to do with government control and is a costly exercise that we will have to move heaven and earth to remove from the country at some time. Yesterday we heard from Senator Walsh, Senator Button and Senator Grimes in the Senate that never was there a better climate for exporters in farming and rural industries than at the moment because of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. Even though the devaluation has been massive, it has already been offset by the huge increases in costs that are required to produce goods. Of course these costs-the cost of buying any equipment needed from overseas, increases in wages and increases in taxes-are made worse by inflation. Yesterday, Senator Collard was ridiculed when he mentioned the unemployment in rural areas because of the application of the fringe benefits tax. One would be so ridiculed only by those who have not been out in the farm communities and seen that farmers have had to put people off. That tax is creating unemployment. It is making the problem worse for the Government because it has to pay the dole to those unemployed people. I am sure that the fringe benefits tax will be the Inchcape Rock that the Government hits. Fringe benefits arose only because tax levels were too high. They were a way by which people could obtain relief from high taxation. Undoubtedly some rorts crept into the system but, instead of reducing taxes, the Government is taxing fringe benefits. It is taxing those benefits in the hands of the employer, not in the hands of the person receiving the benefit. In other words, it is the wrong way up. It is the wrong thing to do. A reduction in taxes will create the prosperity that will get the Government out of the hole it is in. The Government cannot see that, so it is headed for disaster. The work practices that have been mentioned this afternoon are leading us to a new era in conciliation and arbitration. Employers are learning that they can use the conciliation side of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Every time that approach has been used recently, employers have been successful and union banditry has been brought to heel. I am sure that no one is against the trade unionism that looks for better wages and conditions but, when it comes to union banditry, that must be stomped on. We have a beautiful big country with few people and huge resources. It has enormous manufacturing potential that has not been yet realised, and enormous technological potential. I hate to see this country being brought to its knees by the Government's policy. I hope that the people of Australia will get the chance soon to get rid of this Government and its policies and that we can return to some economic sanity. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.42) —Historically, it seems to take about three years for a Labor Government to reduce Australia to economic ruin. Senator Georges —Oh, for goodness sake! Senator HAMER —Remember Scullin? The honourable senator would remember him. Remember Whitlam? The honourable senator would certainly remember him. Now there is Hawke. It is interesting that, only a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was closely involved in a plan to bring another country-in that case, South Africa-to economic ruin. I suppose that that was appropriate because, after all, he is an expert. Whitlam did lasting damage in another way. What happened during the Whitlam years-years which, I am sure, future generations will see as a watershed in Australian society-was that it persuaded the Australian people that, if they wanted better standards, the way to achieve them was not, as in the past, to work a bit harder or to install better equipment but to organise and scream for the Government to provide them and at the same time to rubbish anyone who wanted to help voluntarily. As I said, this has done lasting harm to the attitudes of the Australian community. The demolition job done by the Hawke Government has been very thorough. For the last 50 years, our national wealth had been growing steadily, but three years of Hawke Government rule have halved our national wealth. To put it another way, when the Hawke Labor Government came to power, average weekly earnings of an Australian were slightly higher than those of the Japanese; now they are less than half. The Government clearly does not know what to do. Its motto seems to be: `Now that we have lost sight of our objectives, we must redouble our efforts'. Not all the blame for our present economic problems can be laid at the feet of the Prime Minister. Our terms of trade have deteriorated sharply-something which the Government has been quick to point out. Actually, during the first year of the Hawke Government's term of office, our terms of trade improved. I did not hear the Government then disclaiming responsibility for the economic recovery, particularly as it was assisted dramatically by the breaking of the drought and the benefits of the Fraser Government's wage pause. When things go wrong, the Prime Minister is very quick to blame others. Over the last three years, our economy has been declining and the Government has not been taking proper and timely measures. There is no inherent reason why an Australian worker in, say, a General Motors-Holden's car plant in Melbourne should have a much higher standard of living than a Korean worker building a car at a General Motors plant in Korea. The reason for our higher standard of living has been our primary exports and our mineral wealth, but with the falling terms of trade these industries can no longer support us in the style to which we have become accustomed. We desperately need our manufacturing sector to become competitive by international standards, both to provide us with exports and to replace imports. During the reign of the Hawke Government, we have borrowed $50,000 million overseas-$1,000 million a month-and we have little to show for it, certainly not in improvements in the plant and equipment on which an improved manufacturing performance depends. In fact, in the last three quarters, investment in manufacturing plant and equipment has declined, and I note that the Budget predicts that it will continue to decline. We have not yet started to tackle our problems, and the appalling lack of leadership by this disastrous Government is mainly responsible for that. I get sick and tired of hearing the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) prattling on about our internal economy going well and saying that it is only the external economy that is in trouble. That is like a family which has suffered a sharp drop in income carrying on spending as it was before and saying cheerfully: `Our internal economy is going well. We are spending more than anyone else in the street'. So it may be, until the hire purchase bills start coming in. The bills for this Government are coming in now. It is disgraceful that, after four years of economic growth-funded by overseas borrowings on which we will have to pay interest for many years-we still have a budget deficit. Such years of growth should have enabled a competent, sensible Government to be budgeting for a surplus, which would do a great deal to improve our economic situation. The Hawke Government has been recklessly extravagant. New programs introduced by it will cost us $5,400 million in 1986-87-new programs introduced at a time when the economic crisis facing Australia was becoming obvious. If the Government had been sensible enough not to introduce those new programs, we would not have a deficit at all. Delay in tackling problems-or, like this incompetent Government, refusing to admit that they exist-always makes the cure more painful, as we are all finding out now. As for all this silly talk about the world's greatest Treasurer, Mr Keating has presided over the greatest self-inflicted economic catastrophe in our history at a time when the world economy is prosperous. By the way, other winners of Euromoney's Finance Minister of the Year have been: 1981, Turkey; 1982, Singapore; 1983, Mexico; and 1985, New Zealand. It seems to be an award for countries that are getting, through mismanagement, into diabolical economic trouble. There is nothing wrong with borrowing overseas if it is done to increase one's efficiency and in the expectation of a return, but that has not been what our borrowing under the Hawke regime has been doing. Imagine what Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore or Japan would have done with $50,000 million borrowed overseas. We have frittered it away in wasteful expenditure, living beyond our means. The world does not owe us a living. We must earn it. If we want to maintain our living standards, we must improve the efficiency of our manufacturing sector. That will require years of sustained effort, and this recklessly incompetent Government has wasted the last three years. The fall in the value of the Australian dollar has opened many opportunities for our manufacturing sector to become more competitive. Why is it so slow in taking up these opportunities? Part of the reason is the legacy of the old protection system when a manufacturer, if faced with heavy competition from overseas, rather than investing in new plant and equipment to make himself more efficient or resisting unreasonable union demands, would find it much easier to go to the Government to get a tariff slapped on the importer to put him out of business. These same manufacturers, with the overseas competitors now hobbled by the falling dollar, are now relaxing and thinking that they have never had it so good. We should waste no sympathy on these employers, but there are many others who would like to exploit the situation. Well, why do they not do so? The first and most obvious reason is interest rates which, since the Budget, are now going up and not down. If one is going to make an investment, interest rates are critical. Manufacturers probably do not get the equipment for some time and expect to have it in operation for many years. If the interest rates payable on the capital investment are excessive, they just cannot afford to invest. Our interest rates are much higher than almost anyone else's. The Government must get the interest rates down, both by improving the credibility of its economic management, thus reducing the necessity for the Reserve Bank of Australia to prop up the Australian dollar, but more particularly by reducing the inflation rate, which directly affects the interest rate. Without lowered interest rates we will not get the essential investment in manufacturing plant and equipment-- Senator Watson —But you need an after tax return, don't you? Senator HAMER —Yes, I will come to other factors. The second worry-the after tax return is involved in this-is the concern over the wages outcome. The present President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Crean, has said that the accord gives certainty to wages outcomes. I suppose it does, but it is a certainty that, locked by the accord into high inflation and high wage increases, we will become less and less competitive. Look at our inflation rate. Our inflation rate is about 8 per cent, compared with inflation rates of 1.6 per cent in the United States of America, 3 per cent in Britain, 1 per cent in Japan and a negative inflation rate in West Germany. Our inflation rate is 8 per cent, which the accord continues to build into wages, and the wages build into inflation. Senator Button —Lower than the last six years of your Government. Senator HAMER —This is a very different economic situation. The great objection we have with this Government is that it has not modified its behaviour to fit the economic realities that are now facing us. That is the indictment of this Government. What we are going on with in the circumstances we are facing is economic suicide. We must greatly improve our productivity and eliminate the many restrictive practices which limit our efficiency. We must also work a bit harder. It is absurd to think that we can compete in a world which does not owe us a living when we work for 35, 36 or perhaps 38 hours while others work for 44 hours, with equipment at least as efficient as ours. If we want a decent standard of living in this real world, we can no longer rely on the primary producers and the mineral exporters to provide it for us. We must work for it ourselves. This change of attitude will take time, and in the meantime we have an immediate very difficult problem. The spending power of the Australian community, which is largely determined by ourselves, is out of balance with our export income and our import replacement capabilities. The consequence is that we are sucking in imports at $1,000m a month. Until we can build up a more efficient and competitive manufacturing sector, which will take time, we must restrain incomes inside this country. At the very least, we need a wages freeze. Singapore, which has much less serious economic problems than we have, has accepted a 12 per cent wages cut. If we want to work ourselves out of this crisis, we must show restraint and co-operation. We must get away from the confrontational attitude between management and unions, between them and us, and realise that we are all in it together. We must be prepared to re-examine the sorts of things we could do when we were rich but which we cannot afford to do now when we are trying to be competitive-things such as holiday pay loadings, phoney sickies and four weeks annual holidays-other countries get two weeks-more public holidays than a South American republic, corrupt and recklessly extravagant workers compensation, absurd penalty rates. All these sorts of things we could afford when we were rich but we can no longer afford now because they damage our international competitiveness and impose excessive on-costs on the employment of labour. Madam Acting Deputy President, can you imagine happening here what recently occurred in the copper mining industry in America? In the face of a crisis in copper prices, the miners accepted cuts of up to $4 an hour off existing wages, agreed to no rises at all for the next three years and gave up many long-established restrictive practices. Can you imagine that there? But why not? It is the sort of thing we have to do, particularly in the manufacturing sector, if we are to survive. The trouble is that our unions are not in the business of preserving or increasing job opportunities by increasing efficiency and competitiveness. Too many of them concentrate on preserving jobs by restrictive practices and by feather-bedding. Such things are economically disastrous and are things we can no longer afford. We must involve both workers and management in the success of their enterprises. Other countries have done it. Why not us? Of course, we are hamstrung by an absurd legalistic and centralised arbitration system. It is not even an Australian invention, by the way; we imported it from New Zealand. We must have one of the worst industrial relations and wage fixing systems in the world. Other countries look at it with astonishment and contempt, yet we seem to regard it as normal and unchangeable. Above all, we must improve our productivity. I am sure that everyone in the Senate could name many absurd restrictive practices which are deliberately designed to reduce productivity. We can no longer afford such absurdities. A mining company in Western Australia recently claimed that there were more than 200 outdated and damaging restrictive practices, and such practices are common throughout our industry. I will give just one example of the sort of thing I mean. In Melbourne, a wharf container crane unloads 12.4 containers an hour. An identical piece of equipment in Singapore unloads 23.8 containers an hour and in Japan it unloads 26.7 containers, but in Melbourne 12.4. We can no longer afford such restrictive practices and deliberate go slows because the world does not owe us a living; we must earn it. Such fundamental changes of attitude will require highly skilled leadership. This is one thing which this Government and the Prime Minister, in particular, seem incapable of providing. Outside observers thought us insane when straight after the Prime Minister's address to the nation on the economic situation-a pathetic speech, I thought-we granted ourselves a 2.3 per cent pay rise and then started a commotion for a further 3 per cent pay rise by way of a superannuation scheme. All this was applauded by the Prime Minister, who had just made his speech on the economic crisis. Other countries think we are just plain insane. We have a situation where the President of the ACTU refuses even to discuss whether at this time the country can afford a 3 per cent superannuation scheme which, by the way, is not a superannuation scheme; it is a deferred pay scheme. The President of the Public Service Association refuses even to discuss whether we can afford to continue to pay public servants more pay when they are on holidays than when they are at work. These are the sorts of things we must discuss. If we are going to direct the Australian public's attention to them, and do something about them-the Prime Minister is constantly addressing problems but I wish he would do something about them-we will require strong and sustained leadership. I do not know whether honourable senators remember that, during the Prime Minister's address to the nation on the economy, he swivelled his chair through 90 degrees, fixed his eyes sternly on the new tele-prompter and said: I will not shirk the hard decisions that are necessary . . . I would rather risk electoral defeat than take the soft options. That will be a change. The one thing this Prime Minister has shown himself incapable of doing is taking tough decisions. Remember the MX missile fiasco, which did great harm to our international credibility? As soon as the strain came on the Prime Minister buckled and sold his Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) down the river. Remember the fuss over the assets test? As soon as the strain came on the Prime Minister buckled and sold Senator Grimes down the river. Remember the tax reform fiasco? As soon as the strain came on the Prime Minister buckled and sold the Treasurer (Mr Keating) down the river. Honourable senators must not think that the recent Budget is an indication of prime ministerial leadership. He was dragged kicking and screaming to take decisions that should have been taken two years or more ago. Later in this session we will be debating whether the assumptions upon which the Budget are based are valid, whether the Government restraint is sufficient, whether the encouragement of productivity is adequate and whether the burdens are being fairly shared. But the hardships imposed by this Budget are caused by the intolerable delay of the Government in dealing with the obviously deteriorating economic situation. Of course we do not expect the Prime Minister to provide business guidance. Remember the ACTU Bourke's store, ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd, ACTU Travel and 11 more, all, not surprisingly, now either broke or wound up. But even if the Prime Minister cannot provide business leadership he should at least be able to provide general leadership to the nation. The Prime Minister is now talking about the economic crisis facing Australia as being the equivalent of war. I agree with him. Our danger in a different field is as great as that in 1940 when Britain faced Hitler. Our problem is that we have as a Prime Minister a Neville Chamberlain, not a Churchill. There is even the same sort of paper, `Peace for our Time', as Chamberlain brought back from Munich, but Mr Hawke calls it `The Accord'. The Prime Minister seems temperamentally incapable of providing the essential leadership we need to get us out of our economic crisis because he is a manipulator, not a leader, and if he cannot lead he should go. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) requesting changes in the membership of Estimates committees. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following Senators be discharged from further attendance on Estimates committees- Estimates Committee A-Senator Hill Estimates Committee D-Senator Michael Baume Estimates Committee E-Senator Teague. (2) That the following Senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36ab, be appointed members of the Estimates committees- Estimates Committee A-Senator Alston Estimates Committee D-Senator Teague Estimates Committee E-Senator Michael Baume. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table the explanatory notes of certain departments and authorities relating to the Estimates of Proposed Expenditure for 1986-87. Copies of these explanatory notes are being distributed to members of Senate Estimates committees. Other honourable senators may obtain copies from the Senate Table Office, if required. Debate resumed. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.04) —Before this debate on the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Appeal) Bill was adjourned I had raised the question of the comments of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) about what would happen to material provided to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry once that Commission ceased to exist. I am grateful to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), for responding by way of lengthy interjection and providing an assurance, which I think was repeated at Question Time, that this information would be provided back to the suppliers of that information or referred to instrumentalities concerned with the prosecution of those people who had committed offences in one way or another. I had at the time said that it seemed to me that if this was happening-I accept the Minister's assurance that in his view it would be happening and I do not seek to deny that-I would seek to have enshrined in legislation the requirement that it happen. It seems to me quite improper, and I said so at the time, that the Minister should, on the basis of that kind of undertaking on his part, expect the Senate to go along quite happily with a situation which is clearly not properly resolved nor enshrined in legislation. His undertaking has no force and there is nothing about which the Opposition can take forceful measures if in fact that undertaking is not carried out. Whilst many of us may have total faith in Senator Gareth Evans, many would not share the same faith in the Attorney-General, who is not answerable to this place. I do not know to what extent Senator Evans was in fact the mouthpiece for Lionel Bowen in this matter, but Lionel Bowen did not say that last night, specifically and in the terms that Senator Evans gave today. Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill Senator Gareth Evans —I think he meant to. Senator Durack —He never said it in his second reading speech either; nor did Senator Evans. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I take the point, Senator Durack. As I say to Senator Evans, whilst I have no difficulty with the point of view he expresses, I have great difficulty with the manner in which this Bill will be translated into reality. If Senator Evans thinks that Mr Bowen actually meant to do something, it seems to me that the only possible and realistic way he could translate his misdemeanour of forgetting into proper behaviour would be to enshrine something in legislation so that he will not forget to do it again. When the job has to be done then the Attorney-General will not forget to do it. As it is, he forgot to mention it. I trust that his memory will be jogged far better if in fact there is a bit of legislation telling him to do something, rather than relying on his memory to do it because his colleague in the Senate has committed him so to do. Nonetheless, I do have some concerns, having listened to Senator Evans before lunch and at Question Time, about what in fact this section of the existing legislation really does require because according to Mr Bowen the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill contains provisions whereby matters or material before the Commission were to be handed back on request. Now that is on the request of the person supplying the information; it is not on the request, as I understand it, of the person to whom that information may be useful. I do not know whether Senator Evans will address his mind to that problem that I have. It does not appear to me to be clear either in what Senator Evans said or in what Mr Bowen meant to say yesterday but forgot to say. Senator Gareth Evans —I would have at Question Time had your mob given me the chance. I am happy to do so now. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank Senator Evans because it does seem to me that it is ludicrous that we have at this stage of the debate to ask him questions which go to the very heart of the matter, questions which were not adequately dealt with either by Mr Bowen-whether he forgot or not-or by Senator Evans in his second reading speech. We have already heard quite a bit of debate on the second reading and it is only when I raised these matters that Senator Evans started- Senator Gareth Evans —I was always going to do this in reply, but your mob just kept talking all morning and you are still talking now. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The point I am endeavouring to get through to the honourable senator is that he would have saved himself this trouble, firstly, if the Attorney-General had remembered, and secondly, if Senator Evans himself, in introducing the second reading speech, had in fact bothered to deal with something that was clearly a matter of major moment in the House of Representatives debate the previous night. Senator Gareth Evans —I am but a mouthpiece of my Attorney. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —On one occasion he is a mouthpiece in respect of undertakings; on other matters he is not a mouthpiece. That puts my mind at even greater uncertainty about whether or not the undertaking given by Senator Evans is one that relates to the Attorney-General himself. I am overjoyed that that significant point will be resolved, but at the inappropriate time of the rounding up of the debate rather than at the appropriate time of the second reading speech of the Minister. I am concerned also at section 34 of the original legislation, the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act, which states that the Commission may communicate information where in the course of its inquiry there might be a suggestion of the commission of an offence. The word `may' in this circumstance disturbs me for one very good reason. At this preliminary stage of the inquiry the Commission has received so much information that it has not had an opportunity to examine it with any degree of thoroughness. For example, the report of the Commission to Parliament said in paragraph 6: Counsel assisting the Commission estimate that the hearing of evidence on all present allegations, including cross-examination, up to the stage at which the Judge might be called upon- that is excluding any suggestion of calling Mr Justice Murphy- to give evidence would last at least four months, and possibly much longer. The reason I stress that is that much information has not been effectively examined to establish whether or not, in Mr Lionel Bowen's terms, it is information which may provide evidence of the suggestion of the commission of an offence. At this preliminary stage of the Commission's examination there may be little indication that the information might provide a suggestion of the commission of an offence. Four months inquiry is required by this Commission before it will even be in a position to cross-examine the judge. Yet here we have a situation-- Senator Georges —That was not our intention. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Whatever your intention was-- Senator Georges —Our intention, not mine. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Lionel Bowen's intention, apparently, was to tell us the truth about this matter last night and he failed to do so. There is a great slip between intention and realisation in this place. What concerns me is that a lot of material, which will require, according to the Commission, four months of examination before it even gets to the stage where it wants to cross-examine the judge, may well not be at a stage where it adequately provides any suggestion of the commission of an offence. But after four months there may well be a mass of material, if this inquiry were permitted to continue, of major relevance relating to the commission of an offence, not relating to the judge at all. I am not concerned about that; I am concerned about the third parties. This examination bears so heavily on the possibility of commissions of offences by third parties, yet the possibility of inquiring into that is now being destroyed by destroying this inquiry. The Act clearly states that the Commission may communicate information where in the course of its inquiry there might be the suggestion of the commission of an offence. What I am saying is that if Senator Georges or anyone else wishes to cover up the consequences for, for example, the right wing machine of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales, or whoever else may be involved in these matters, so be it. The essential point is that at this stage the Commission is not in an adequate position to be able to tell whether this material might include the suggestion of the commission of an offence and on that ground will not have the right to communicate it to other authorities, because the Act says `the Commission may'. It is under no compulsion to communicate information, but it may if there is a suggestion. It seems to me that there is a real need for a requirement for this information to be required to be transferred to appropriate bodies, if it is the intention of the Government, with the support of the Australian Democrats, to close off this inquiry and prevent it from being continued and to bury this mountain of material. As the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Spender, said in the other place, this Bill sets up what the Attorney-General has called an exclusive code which is designed to bury in perpetuity any material before the Commission of Inquiry in any way relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy and has the effect of denying access to the material in perpetuity, even if it is directly relevant to the proof of a criminal offence against some third person. Senator Evans has outlined that where the person providing information requests-the word `requests' was used by Lionel Bowen-its return, that situation does not obtain. I put to Senator Evans that it depends on that request. I will deal also with clause 7, under which the Presiding Officers jointly have the exclusive right to the possession of any document that was in the possession of the Commission immediately before the commencement of the clause as a law. That refers to `any document', so there may be documents of major significance-who knows-which will be buried in perpetuity under this situation. As Mr Spender pointed out, an A class document is defined as meaning a document that contains material relating to the conduct of the Hon. Lionel Keith Murphy. It does not say `adversely reflecting on the conduct of Lionel Keith Murphy'; it says `relating', which means relating in any way, good or bad, even if the way in which it relates is purely in passing and even though it contains material directly relevant to the proof of criminal activities by some third person. Therefore, so long as the document falls within the description of a class A document it is to remain in the possession of the Presiding Officers, with the reservation which has been clearly stated by Senator Evans, the full meaning of which I look forward to hearing. The reason I am outlining in full my concerns-- Senator Gareth Evans —It is because you cannot stop yourself talking. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —If only the Attorney-General had started talking to the issues, we would not have had to continue in this way. I will concede to being obsessive about this, but for almost 20 years I was a journalist and I take a specific objection to governments which seek to intrude into the rights and duties of journalists to inquire into information which is properly the possession of the people. Senator Durack —Nothing he says he is going to do will fix that up. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I take that point. The issue seems to me to be that whether the information goes back to the people who supplied it or to instrumentalities which may be able to prosecute people, if for some reason a journalist becomes aware of that information which has gone back to the person who originally presented it, the journalist, even if briefed by that person, appears to me to be still subject-- Senator Gareth Evans —No. If you sit down, I will explain all this. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I want the Minister to be aware of the proper concerns of which the Minister in the House of Representatives obviously was either not aware or for which he had an arrogant disregard because he did not answer them. These concerns are quite properly held. I certainly oppose any suggestion that this kind of information should be buried forever. If the Government wants to achieve the result which it now indicates it is seeking to achieve it should rewrite this legislation so that it does not appear to be acting in a draconian and offensive way which is aimed at imposing appalling penalties on people. It now tells us that it has no real intention of doing so and that it would not happen. Why on earth, if it would not happen, are there such penalties? Why is the matter being approached in this way? What is the purpose of the Government's appearing to heavy the media, to heavy everyone, in a way that does not exist in other matters. I wonder why a new principle is established in this legislation which to my knowledge does not exist in other legislation. Perhaps Senator Durack can help me on that matter. I am not aware of similar examples of such penalties. Senator Evans too may be able to help me. If it is not the intention to single out people for special attack, I simply ask the Minister: For heavens sake, why not try again and do a little better this time? I ask the Attorney-General to do a little better this time and, while he is ramming things through and preventing adequate debate, to remember to tell the Parliament what the legislation is all about. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.22) —in reply-The Opposition has done itself no credit by its performance today. It has demonstrated through a number of speakers all that same determination to impugn the character, the reputation and the integrity of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy that has been so evident for the whole 2 1/2 years that this matter has been afloat. It has also demonstrated a total lack of any human compassion in the response that has been made to the horrible reality that the man it has been persecuting is now dying. Those opposite pay no attention to the reality that the man is no longer in a physical condition to participate further in the inquiry and to defend himself against the allegations that have been made. They have paid no reasonable attention to the fact that he is in no physical condition to continue to sit on the Bench, although Mr Justice Murphy chose to reassert briefly his right to do so in a way that I think was both understandable and honourable. Those opposite have chosen, in short, simply to ignore the reality that this man will very soon be dead. Everyone dealing with this very unhappy matter-the Government, the Presiding Officers and the commissioners of the Inquiry-had hoped that it would not really be necessary to put into the public domain precise details of Mr Justice Murphy's illness and condition, to state anything more than that he had a terminal illness and was unfit to proceed, without having to spell out the time frame involved, the probabilities of remission and so on. It became necessary to do so today through the tabling of the medical certificate by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives because of the extraordinarily squalid contribution of a number of members of the Opposition who in the other place yesterday questioned the bona fides of this entire repeal legislation. It was questioned in an indirect, sneering kind of way by Opposition shadow Attorney-General Spender. It was questioned in a much more direct and quite contemptible way by Opposition member Aldred, who said at one point: I suggest that the reason the inquiry has been closed down relates not so much to the purported state of health of Justice Murphy but more to the enormity of the material that has been put together by the Commission and the ramifications that flow from that . . . That was the sort of snide, contemptible allegation that was permeating the entire debate yesterday in the House of Representatives. It was a snide set of responses that had to be put at rest, and I hope that it was put at rest by the medical certificate that was tabled this morning, which in stark and unequivocal terms makes it clear that Mr Justice Murphy's condition is indeed terminal. The time frame on any view is very short. By implication, the possibilities of remission are as small as they possibly can be in this sort of case. I seek leave to incorporate that medical certificate in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Mr Justice Murphy is a 63 year old man whose symptoms, enlarged liver and chronic anaemia, suggested carcinoma of the colon. This was confirmed by X-ray examination of the bowel and by colonoscopy. The cancer has spread throughout the liver, as evidenced by clinical and ultrasound examination. Carcinoma of the colon with diffuse liver involvement is a terminal disease. While it is difficult to prognosticate in any individual, the life expectancy for a patient suffering from this stage of colon cancer, without further treatment, is in the order of 3-9 months. Should chemotherapy be used, there is a limited (about 20%) prospect of prolonging his survival for a further period of months. Mr Justice Murphy has been seen by the following specialists: 1. Professor William Doe, Specialist Physician in Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine and Clinical Science, Woden Valley Hospital, Canberra 2. Mr Ray Hollings, Specialist Colorectal Surgeon, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney who concur with the above statement. Rob Griffiths, MB BS (Mon), MRCP (UK), 46 Mugga Way, Red Hill. Canberra. 1 August 1986 Senator Georges —It is a disgrace that we have to do it. Senator GARETH EVANS —Exactly, it is a disgrace. It demeans those who made it necessary for that course to be taken. But it was taken with the consent, and indeed at the request this morning, of His Honour Mr Justice Murphy because he was unhappy at any lingering impression that this whole matter could be a terrible, artificial attempt to create out of nothing an excuse for winding up the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. More could be said about Mr Justice Murphy's condition, certainly by those who have had some personal acquaintance with him recently, but I do not feel it appropriate to do so. I simply say that his condition is desperately serious and to question its seriousness is to demean the person so questioning. That leads me naturally to the question which occupied a good deal of the debate today, even if the question of Mr Justice Murphy's medical condition was not so prominent as in the other place. I refer to the timing of this measure and the haste with which the legislation allegedly was brought into the Parliament. Mr Justice Murphy clearly is unable, because of his present condition, to appear before the Commission to give evidence-not that that would even be required for something like four months, on the Commission's own account of its timetable-nor is he in a condition to follow the kind of evidence that would be given and to give appropriate instructions to counsel appearing for him so that they could cross-examine and carry on his defence effectively. The Commission has made it clear in paragraph 8 of its first report: The prognosis of the medical certificate makes obvious the problems posed by this course. The course to which it refers is the continuation of the Commission for the many more months which it says would be necessary because of the state of the material. It continues: To continue hearings if the Judge were too ill to take part in them would be contrary to established practice and to natural justice. I must say that I did not understand anyone in the Opposition contributing to this debate today to be in any way challenging that proposition that if someone is too ill to participate it is clearly inappropriate for the Commission to proceed. Senator Durack —We did not challenge that. We said it was a matter for the Commission to handle. Senator GARETH EVANS —I acknowledged that nobody on the Opposition side challenged that, accepting the reality of the Commission's determination of that matter. If the disability being experienced by the judge were merely temporary, obviously something in the nature of an adjournment of the Commission's proceedings rather than their cessation would have been the appropriate course to follow, but it is manifestly clear that the disability in question is not temporary. It is for all practical purposes permanent. The illness is terminal, and in a very short time indeed His Honour Mr Justice Murphy will no longer be with us. On the Commission's own assessment, there is no prospect of its finishing its task before 30 September, the reporting date in the legislation, nor, on its present assessment of the material, before the end of March 1987. Even if Lionel Murphy were to live that long he would not be able to participate by virtue of his condition, on any view of it, with or without some miraculous remission, so the matter cannot proceed. Under those circumstances it was manifestly pointless and, moreover, expensively pointless, for the Commission to stay on foot longer than was strictly necessary to wind up. Accordingly, this repeal legislation has been brought in at the first available parliamentary opportunity. It was the obvious and rational response, and it is not a response, I understand, that has been objected to by the commissioners. As to whether this course is in accordance with His Honour Mr Justice Murphy's wishes-and we have had today an extraordinary series of bleatings by people suggesting that His Honour did not want the Commission terminated, that he wanted it to continue, and that it was some sordid motivation leading the Government against his wishes to wind it up-although there was some misunderstanding to that effect based on public comments made by well-intentioned counsel on Mr Justice Murphy's behalf, once it became apparent to him that because of his condition there was no possibility of his participating actively in the Commission's proceedings, much as he would like to be able to clear his name, he acknowledged that the only appropriate course was for the Commission to close. I will continue my remarks after the dinner suspension. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator GARETH EVANS —The matter to which I now turn is the means employed in winding up the Commission, and in particular the provisions in the legislation about the treatment of material accumulated by it. A number of quite extravagant and fanciful claims have been made about the intent and effect of the legislation in this respect. I think it is important now to try to sort them out. The legislation draws a distinction between class A and class B material. Most of the argument has been about class A material, which is material relating to the conduct of the Hon. Lionel Keith Murphy. Most of the argument has been about that, and I will come back to that in a moment. Class B document means a document containing material relating to the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution or any other matter, but not including a class A document. There has not been much argument about the class B material except for people suggesting that there is something inappropriate about vesting the custody of that material in the Presiding Officers. I simply say that it is in the view of the Government obviously appropriate that this material be accessible on ordinary freedom of information type principles. It is especially appropriate that the section 72 material-whatever one thinks of its worth-be open to scrutiny. This is a parliamentary commission that has been established and it is further appropriate that the custody of its material be vested in the Presiding Officers, who represent, of course in their persons-very able persons at the moment-this particular parliamentary institution, and that access to the material be regulated at their discretion in accordance with proper principles. It may be thought and may have been thought appropriate that some classes of this material could more tactfully or properly have not been brought into the public domain at least until such time as Mr Justice Murphy's illness has run its course. It is obvious that the release of the opinions, particularly in the terms in which they appear, by the judges about section 72 will generate another debate now about the various allegations that have been made about Mr Justice Murphy in the past, and whether they were such as to justify his removal from the Bench. We had an earful of that today, in particular from Senator Lewis. I suspect that there will be many more. Senator Durack —You were just dead wrong; that is all. Senator GARETH EVANS —When I get impressed by opinions of the kind that have been produced by those judges and weigh them against the opinions of previous Solicitors-General and so on I have to make my own judgment about it. The argument is by no means over yet, but it is not an argument we need to have now. I simply make the point that had there been any serious commitment to an element of compassion on the other side in its approach to this matter rather than cheap point scoring it might have been appropriate for some consultation to have taken place between the Presiding Officers and the party leaders with a view to that material being put into the public domain as soon as it was appropriate, but with that course perhaps being deferred for some little period. In any event that did not happen. For one reason or another, the material found its way into the public domain today, and so be it. There is nothing much left then apart from, I suppose, some administrative documentation, if anyone is interested in that, that satisfies the description of class B documents. The argument is really about class A material, that which relates to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy. It is true that the Bill as it has been drafted prohibits certain kinds of disclosure of Commission documents in a very comprehensive way. The obvious objective, if we need to go back to basics on this, is to prevent the kind of grotesque unfairness to Lionel Murphy and his family that would flow from untested allegations about any aspect of his life-public life, private life, on the Bench, in politics, or before all that over the last 60-odd years. There would be an obvious unfairness in that untested material getting unhindered into the public domain for use in the kind of way that we know so many people, institutions, organisations and journals are anxious to use it. It has not been the subject of any investigation at this stage. It is simply in the nature of untested allegations. It has not been reinforced by any oral evidence at all put to the Commission. It has not been subjected, as I said, to any testing in the Commission or anywhere else. This may be a unique provision-and I will indicate the qualifications to the way in which it operates-and to the extent that it is a uniquely far-reaching non-disclosure provision supported by vigorous sanctions it must be appreciated that the circumstances in which this legislation is being drafted are themselves unique. There has never been, in the history of this country, anything like this Commission established before. Never has there been a commission, whether a parliamentary commission, a royal commission or any other kind of committee of inquiry, established to inquire in a completely general and completely open ended way into the conduct and the behaviour over an unspecified period of years, in an unspecified array of roles and offices, of a single individual. It is unique that an individual should be exposed to that kind of treatment, that kind of examination, that kind of scrutiny, and it is uniquely appropriate under those circumstances that we be uniquely sensitive to the implications of that material as it bears upon that individual getting, unhindered, untrammelled, without significant limitation, into the public domain. It was not a matter of destroying the material, though the Democrats continue to display some affection for that particular solution and appropriate as it may be for the quality of some of that material, as it undoubtedly will be. That is obviously not on if one maintains any sense of history. It is appropriate that basic archival rules apply to this and that in 30 years time the basic ground rules for Commonwealth documentation generally apply, subject to such exemptions as apply to this sort of material, which can properly be administered by the Presiding Officers. It was an oversight in the drafting to leave it completely open ended. It was not the intention really to do that forever. It was appropriate that archival rules apply, and an amendment relating to that has been circulated, We can debate that later on. Nor was it a matter of in any way burying material that had any law enforcement relevance, not only in relation to the judge but also to other people. It was not a matter of trying in any way to suppress allegations that people made to the Commission and may themselves want to make again, either in the public domain if they are prepared to risk the law of defamation, to the extent that it continues to apply-which will not be, regrettably, very much longer in the case of Lionel Murphy himself-or to the extent that they want to make such allegations to law enforcement agencies of various kinds. If, for example, the Age newspaper has made-again, I do not know whether it has or it has not-along with other public journals, the National Times and so on, the kinds of allegations it has been making over the last 2 1/2 years, or if it wants to put them on to the public record with such documentary evidence as it put to the Commission, there is nothing in either the terms of the present Act or the repeal Bill which will prohibit the originator of such material using it again. It is just a matter of the proper construction of clause 8 of the Bill before us. We can talk more about that at the Committee stage if honourable senators want to. It is only material derived from documentary material before the Commission that is prohibited from going back into the public domain. It is not that documentary material itself to the extent that it is available to its originators. Could I focus more closely than I had time to do in Question Time today, or than some people thought was appropriate to do then, to explain just what the situation is about the material so far as law enforcement agencies are concerned. Let me repeat what I said. The Commission, I was advised, was in the process of returning materials made available to it by the law enforcement agencies. Since Question Time today I have been further advised that all law enforcement agencies that have supplied documentary material to the Commission have requested their material back and all requests have already been met. The material has been returned. Copies of some of this material are still held, however, on Commission files. As such it is subject, in that capacity, to the rigorous non-disclosure rules that are here contained in the Bill. Material received from other persons, not from law enforcement agencies, who have requested the return of that material is being returned. I am advised by the Commission that no copies of that material are being kept. Material not requested is not being returned. That is consistent with the terms of section 18 (2) of the present Act, which makes the power of the Commission to return material contingent on such a request. I think that answers the point made about that. So far as the Commission's capacity itself to pass on to law enforcement agencies material not originated from such agencies, but perhaps turning up in the course of documentary submissions made by other people, the Commission has the capacity under section 34 of the present Act to communicate such as it thinks appropriate of that material to law enforcement agencies. Those law enforcement agencies are set out and include the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States, the National Crime Authority and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or of a police force of a State or Territory. Material which, in the view of the Commission, satisfies that description is, as I have indicated, being passed-if it has not already been passed now-to the National Crime Authority. Therefore, there simply is no conceivable question of any kind of cover-up of the sort that has been alleged. Of course it is in the interests of justice and public policy and everything else that if material should have turned up in the course of this extraordinary saga, which does bear upon possible criminal behaviour by third persons, then of course it ought to be investigated and properly dealt with and, of course, it will be dealt with-unless honourable senators opposite want to challenge the integrity not only of the Government on this matter but also of the three Commissioners who have been subjected to so much praise during the course of this whole argument. Of course such material will be returned. There will be no mechanical problems about that occurring. As I indicated at Question Time today and as I repeat, the Bill will not formally be presented for assent and, as such, the repealing Bill come into force until around the middle of next week, by which time it has been indicated to the Government by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry the processes that are in train for dealing with the documentary material will be complete. For the sake of completion might I just respond now to the other question asked of me today as to whether I could inform the Senate of the situation in relation to informants to the Commission-other than informants from law enforcement agencies. I was asked whether they are prevented from taking any allegations they may wish to make to any law enforcement agency or to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, if they believe that some national security matter is involved, or whether such material is, as some people keep asking, going to be forever buried by virtue of the operation of the clauses of this Bill. I say in relation to this that no, there is no inhibition on individuals dealing with their own material and allegations in this way. Nor, as a corollary to that, are such agencies as ASIO or anybody else, should that be relevant, prevented from using that material if it proves to have some relevance. All that the Bill now before us does is to preserve the confidentiality of the material the Commission had immediately before winding up. The Commission would punish disclosure only of material that is derived from the material in the Commission's possession. Clause 5 of the Bill, which I gather is the subject of some concern also, has been written in such a way-it may even be unnecessary given the fact that there was no oral evidence before the Commission-that it has some potential effect of narrowing the scope of section 16 of the parent Act so that it applies only to documents created for the purposes of the Commission. It would not apply in any way to inhibit the admissibility in other proceedings of other kinds of documents not created for the purposes of the Commission, such as the report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Age tapes or an allegation an informant might make to a law enforcement agency. As I said, no oral testimony has been taken by the Commission; so use of that kind of testimony, to the extent that that basically is what clause 5 is about, is in no way affected by the operation of that clause. I think that answers just about every question that has now been raised about the treatment of that material. However, so far as the Age tapes are concerned I cannot forbear in winding up from reminding Senator Puplick in particular, who gave this ferret a run for the umpteenth time, of what the bi-partisan all-party report of that first Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge in August 1984 said of that material, on the assumption that it might eventually prove to have some authenticity in whole or part. What the members of that Committee said unanimously-I remind the Senate that both Senator Durack and Senator Lewis were members of that Committee-at the conclusion of the Committee was: . . . even if the tape recording is a complete and unaltered record of the conversation as it actually took place, such conversation contains nothing which could amount to, or provide evidence of, any misbehaviour on the part of the judge, whatever interpretation of misbehaviour under section 72 of the Constitution is accepted. That is the kind of conclusion that was drawn, and properly drawn, by the Senate Committee in regard to that material. Let us hear no more of the Age tapes and the great undisclosed mysteries that continue to lurk beneath them so far as the judge or, for that matter, it seems just about anyone else is concerned. The Senate has passed upon this question and whatever interpretation we might be minded to accept of section 72 in the light of the further consideration of it, it will not change the course of history so far as our perception of his Honour Mr Justice Murphy is concerned. It is not time now to review, much as I am tempted to do so, the whole course of the campaign that has been so maliciously waged against Lionel Murphy over the last two and a half years and against, for that matter, the Government-not to mention myself in particular-for endeavouring to continue to apply some kinds of consistent principles about fairness and justice and about the way in which individuals are treated to ensure that an individual and his family are not subjected to inquisition and not subjected to trial, criminal or otherwise, simply because allegations are made. Let me finish where I began: Surely this is a time at last for some compassion for this man who is, whatever one thinks of the contribution he has made over the years, whatever one thinks of his character, a man who has made a gigantic contribution to the life of this nation, a man who has suffered unmercifully as a result of the pressures that have been placed on him, not least by the behaviour of those in this chamber, and a man who is now dying. For God's sake can we not let him and this issue now rest in peace. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Siddons, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Coleman, R. N. Townley, M. Button, J. N. Knowles, S. C. Walsh, P. A. Crichton-Browne, N. A. McIntosh, G. D. Chaney, F. M. Grimes, D. J. Jessop, D. S. Cook, P. F. S. Sheil, G. Ryan, S. M. Teague, B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 4-by leave-taken together. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.25) —There are two general observations that I wish to make in relation to this Bill. The first and most serious and rather distressing one is that I feel that I must reply to the observations made by Senator Gareth Evans during this debate and particularly in his peroration. Senator Georges —You are out of order. Senator DURACK —Okay, we will hear from Senator Georges as well if he wants to participate in this debate. At the beginning of my speech in opening the debate on the second reading of the Bill on behalf of the Opposition I went to some lengths to point out that we-- Senator Georges —You are out of order. Senator DURACK —Is the honourable senator taking a point of order? Does he want to shut me up? Senator Georges —No. Senator DURACK —If not, the honourable senator should not waste my time. I went to some lengths to point out that in my view the Opposition was placed in a most invidious position by the Government in this matter. Having been through this debate, and speaking on behalf of some of my colleagues who expressed the same feeling, I felt it was most unfortunate that this Senate should have been put in the position by the Government-it is its responsibility-of debating this matter. There was absolutely no need for this legislation to be brought into this Parliament at this stage or even at all. The responsibility for this debate rests fairly and squarely on the Government, particularly, I suggest, on the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table. He has been trading on all the feelings of sympathy of honourable senators for Mr Justice Murphy. He is trading on those feelings to put us in a totally false position. I resent very bitterly not only the attempt that he has made to do so but also his constant reiteration of that matter. I do not propose to add any more to it. The other general observation that I wish to make concerns the total inadequacy of the Government's handling of this matter. The Government has probably been very surprised by public reaction to its proposal in this legislation and to the terms and details of the legislation. Obviously it believed that it could, as I said, trade on public sympathy. It has done it unmercifully and, I believe, in a quite disgraceful way. That led it to believing that it could get away with murder with this legislation. That is literally what it has been about, but it has been caught out well and truly. If one were to read the Hansard record of the performance of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) yesterday in another place one would see very clearly what I mean. I do not propose to go over again the totally unseemly and unnecessary haste with which this legislation was brought in and the totally inadequate opportunities which the Opposition was given to consider the legislation and its position and reaction to it. The Government knew perfectly well that in any program it laid down for the sittings of the Parliament the Opposition would be having a party meeting on Tuesday of each week. The Government had ample time to have the legislation made available to the Opposition so that the Opposition could process it in its ordinary course of shadow Cabinet and party room discussions. Despite the fact that the Government had made a decision a couple of weeks ago, it made no attempt to accommodate the Opposition. We were given some scrappy first draft of this Bill on Tuesday evening. It was only when the debate was called on in the House of Representatives yesterday morning at 10 o'clock that the final printed version of the Bill became available to the Opposition. I think that was about the time that my colleague the shadow Attorney-General was on his feet. We were expected to respond to this legislation in the House of Representatives yesterday and are expected to respond to it in the Senate today without having had any adequate opportunity to analyse the legislation. Fortunately, because there is a vigilant Opposition and a vigilant free Press in this country, real efforts were made to examine the legislation and to detect its deficiencies. The Government was confronted this morning with an outcry, which it thoroughly deserved, from the Press about the cover-up aspects of the legislation and its draconian provisions to muzzle the Press, members of the Parliament and everybody within the Government's sights in regard to the material before the Commission. I feel that this is probably one of the most sorry episodes I have ever seen in this Parliament or that any of us are ever likely to see. The responsibility rests not with the Opposition but fairly and squarely with the Government, and particularly with Senator Evans and the Attorney-General. The Government has replied to the second reading debate in the Senate. We have had a debate in the House of Representatives, before which there was very little opportunity for anybody to study the legislation. There was the second reading speech of the Attorney-General, who introduced the Bill, which made no reference whatsoever to what was going to happen to a whole lot of vital documents. In reply in the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General made some totally garbled and unintelligible comments which I think Senator Michael Baume tried to unravel at some stage in the debate here. I do not know whether the Attorney-General simply was not briefed properly, whether he cannot understand briefs or whether he could not care less, but I have never seen a more deplorable performance by a man who is the first law officer, a legal adviser of the Government and, into the bargain, the Deputy Prime Minister. He left everybody yesterday in a total state of confusion as to what on earth this Bill means. The Bill is not well drafted, but we will go into that later in the Committee stage. The Attorney-General should at least have clearly explained what the Government's intentions were in relation to a whole lot of vital documents. He did not do so. The Bill was then introduced into the Senate last night by Senator Evans, who probably has a somewhat better grasp of legal matters, albeit a very academic one, and certainly has a better command of expression than the Attorney-General. One would have thought that Senator Evans, when he introduced this Bill, would at least have repaired the glaring deficiencies of the Attorney-General's speech in the House of Representatives. But not on your life! He introduced the Bill into the Senate last night in the same totally inadequate terms as those used by the Attorney-General. The Bill was brought on for debate first thing this morning. There was another interesting little episode this morning when there were further attempts at suppression of reports by Senator Evans, a matter which we will go into later. But the fact is that it was only as a result of the probing of this legislation in the House of Representatives by the shadow Attorney-General and others, by the Press this morning, and in the debate here today which has further probed what the Government is about, that we finally got any effort by the Government to explain what it intended to do about a whole range of vital documents. That is the setting against which we go into this Committee debate. We go into the Committee debate having had every attempt by this Government not only to rush through this legislation and to get rid of the Commission but also to mislead the Parliament, the people and the Press about what the Government was about. The Government was hoping-there is only one interpretation-that no one would probe, that no one would see the point. It was hoping to suppress forever documents of vital importance to, if nothing else, the history of this country. Senator Georges —They could not do that; you know that. Senator DURACK —Of course the Government could do it. That is what this Bill does. Senator Georges does not know any more about it than the Attorney-General knows, I am sorry to say. The whole of the Labor benches are empty except for Senator Georges and Senator Evans. The Government and its supporters could not care less. They mouth a lot of stuff they do not believe in about freedom of information, academic freedom, and civil liberties-you name it. They are all bleeding hearts for these things-as long as it does not affect their mates; their little mates, their big mates, their middle mates or whatever. They are in this business to protect their mates at all costs. Senator Kilgariff —Regardless of principle. Senator DURACK —Regardless of principle. This Bill is the greatest example of that deplorable characteristic of the Labor Party and everybody who is a member of it. As far as I can see there is no one of principle in that Party whatever. Clauses agreed to. Clause 5 (Statement made by witness not admissible in evidence). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.37) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: (1) Clause 5, leave out sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: `(1) A statement or disclosure made, or a document produced, by a witness in the course of giving evidence before the Commission is not admissible in evidence against the witness in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.' This is not one of the most important amendments proposed by the Opposition. However, I believe that it is one which needs to be moved and passed because clause 5 as it stands is quite inadequate and unprincipled. The clause deals with evidence that has been given before the Commission. That is what Senator Evans says it is meant to mean. It refers to: A statement or disclosure made, or a document produced, by a witness in the course of giving evidence before the Commission, or any information or document obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the statement or disclosure or the production of the first-mentioned document . . . The clause seems to me to be a bit mixed up. It is a good example of the very sloppy, inadequate drafting of the Bill. Senator Evans says that the clause applies only to actual evidence given before the Commission but that is, I think, a matter for some debate. According to Senator Evans, I gather, it does not matter now because in his view no evidence was given before the Commission. That may or may not be so; we do not know. Clause 5 could be interpreted to prevent statements, documents, disclosures or information-pretty wide expressions have been given to the Commission in some shape or form-from ever being used. It states that such documents are `not admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings'. That is an extraordinarily wide prohibition and one which is simply not justified. It is quite at variance with other provisions in the parent Act and with all the rhetoric we have heard from Senator Evans as to how documents that belong to other law enforcement bodies or documents which have been generated within the Commission and which may be of relevance to other law enforcement bodies should be made available to them or given back to them. It is quite clear that if that provision is to take effect-the Government now says that that is intended-it may well be that much of that evidence should be available in a civil or criminal proceeding. The normal principle in relation to royal commissions and other commissions of inquiry is that where people are obliged to give evidence and may or may not have privilege against self- incrimination, that evidence should not be used against them in any other subsequent proceeding; but evidence they give generally, which may not be against their interest or incriminate them in any way, should be available. There is no reason why it should not be available-in fact there is every reason why it should be available-in any other criminal or civil proceedings. As I have said, that is the rule generally in relation to commissions of inquiry. This clause goes way beyond that, and it would stultify and negative other provisions of the existing legislation. The amendment to clause 5 which I have moved adopts the principle that the only prohibition is that evidence cannot be given against a person who has been forced to give evidence, statements, disclosures or information, as stated in this clause, to the Commission of Inquiry. Incidentally, the Commission of Inquiry does not protect any right of self- incrimination, so people may well have been forced to give evidence. Therefore, it is even more important that we should be able to give protection to people who have been required to give evidence. Apart from that circumstance, clearly evidence that has been given should be admissible in other proceedings. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(8.44) —I interjected that Senator Durack was out of order. He had other means available to him by which he could have made a statement rather than making it at the Committee stage. I did not raise a point of order in case he thought I was endeavouring to gag him. However, if he had sought leave to make a statement I do not doubt that we would have given him leave. He also has the opportunity of speaking at the third reading stage without again opening up the second reading debate. At this stage I will confine my remarks to the matter immediately before us. What troubles me about the Opposition's proposition is this: My understanding of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry we set up was that it had very narrow terms of reference. What worries me is that somehow the Commission took on a life of its own. Whether or not that was with the agreement of the Presiding Officers is not relevant. It certainly was not without the permission of this Parliament that the Commission should proceed as it did. It was not as though people were brought before the Commission to give evidence, as has been suggested by Senator Durack: That was his concern-that the evidence having been given ought not to be in a position of not being disclosed. What worries me is that the Commission took the unusual step of advertising without our permission for information from people in general on a very serious matter which we had delegated to it. It advertised for information in such a way that any person could come forward with unfounded allegations, scurrilous allegations, quite extraordinary allegations, and obtain the privilege of this Parliament for that information. Virtually what the Commission did was to extend to people in general a privilege to come forward and give information, and this is the sort of information that Senator Durack is endeavouring to free-quite untested allegations, scurrilous allegations, allegations of a nature that we have been familiar with over the past two years. Senator Peter Baume —How do you know, George? Senator GEORGES —I am saying that I know the background of some of the information and it is quite unfounded, scurrilous and vindictive, endeavouring to destroy. We have given assistance to that type of information being given, that type of activity. I cannot understand just how the Commission suddenly decided to take upon itself a further inquiry which, on its own admission and on its own request, would take another four or five months. Thus another chapter was opened in this sorry affair. In a way we are endeavouring to prevent that sort of information from getting further currency. I think the Opposition has exaggerated. I feel that the Opposition has masked an attempt to continue the attacks that were levelled earlier. I am sorry to say that, but when a certain person in Queensland said `Pursue him to the end', that person was subjected to considerable and justifiable criticism. However, it seems to me that that person was not alone in that attitude. Hidden in what is happening here today is that sort of motive, a motive to pursue to the very end. I find that very difficult to accept. It is clear to me that the intention of the legislation is to prevent this unfounded information which was sought by the Commission in a most extraordinary way from becoming available. Where else could a jurist find a situation where, when a person comes before a court-and the Commission of Inquiry was, in effect, a court-an advertisement is put before the public seeking information against the person? In this case that is exactly what happened. The Commission advertised for information. Senator MacGibbon —You voted for the legislation. Senator GEORGES —I know, with considerable reservations at the time. I said at the time that the whole matter should have been brought to an end, but for some reason we did not bring it to an end and suddenly we find the matter extended in this way. Let us get back to the matter before the Committee. Senator Durack seems to think that information or proceedings or records can be hidden forever. They cannot because at some future date this Parliament may determine that we should release them. It is within the power of this Parliament to reverse legislation it has passed. So it is no use saying that this sort of information will be buried forever. In any case, the people who brought forward information to the Commission can, if they so desire, bring it forward elsewhere. But of course they are not game to do so. The information is unfounded; it is scurrilous and it is defamatory. How can they get that information out? They can do so by getting the cover of privilege, either before a Senate committee or before a special commission. To the eternal discredit of this Commission, it advertised for information against the person before it-someone whom it would have put upon the rack, using the information which it had so obtained. We are party to these procedures. I am angry that the Senate has lent itself to these procedures and that the Presiding Officers have agreed to them. We suddenly find that special investigators have been appointed. On whose authority were they appointed to search for evidence to support information obtained by the Commission's advertising? Senator Walters —Ask the Minister. Senator GEORGES —I am asking the Senate in Committee. Senator Durack —It is no good asking the Senate. Senator GEORGES —I agree with Senator Durack. The matter should not have been the subject of any debate, and I am sorry that it is. It could lead to one making accusations in the heat of the moment which one may later regret. It would be far better to do what we wish to do as quickly as possible and allow this matter to pass. We are participating in a tragedy of classic proportions. A further chapter must unfold in this place. I am waiting to hear what will be said by those who attacked and those who ceased to come to the judge's defence. I am waiting to see just one further chapter unfold. The whole episode has been to the Senate's discredit as it has pursued a person to the point where he has no further defence. His ability to fight back has been taken away from him, and I regret that. It should be of regret to the Committee that the person concerned cannot fight back to clear himself completely of these scurrilous allegations, which will have currency in the future no matter what the Parliament decides in this legislation. He is not able, because of the circumstances in which he finds himself, to fight back. Recognising that the judge cannot fight back, we should never put him on the defensive, where he would seek to fight though he no longer had the strength to do so. Let us pass the Bill. Let us get rid of the wretched Commission which we set up and the three judges who suddenly have set themselves up to place a person further on the rack. Let us put an end to it. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.53) —I am puzzled why the Opposition seeks to amend clause 5. I am even more bemused as to why the Government put clause 5 in the Bill in the first place. I was under the distinct impression, perhaps wrongly, that no witnesses have appeared before and no evidence has been given to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. I do not understand why we are worrying about who is, or who is not, protected as a consequence of a non-existent witness giving non-existent evidence before a still barely existing Commission. The Opposition has simply varied clause 5 (1) so that it deviates from section 16 of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act 1986, which set up the Commission of Inquiry, and fits in more with the normal protection for witnesses giving evidence before a royal commission. The Opposition wishes clause 5 (2) to remain in the Bill. But that does not seem to make sense or serve any point in the exercise if no witnesses have given evidence before the Commission. I hope that the Minister can say whether witnesses have given evidence before the Commission and, if not, why those who drafted the Bill inserted that clause in the first place. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.56) — Senator Haines is already proving herself to be a worthy successor to Senator Chipp. Armed with information which I gave her just two minutes ago, she has engaged in a grandstanding belt at the Government. I hope that that gets it out of her system and that we shall have a clear run for the rest of the Bill. There is no practical room for the application of clause 5, either in its Government version or in its Opposition version. I will accordingly suggest to the Committee that it vote against the clause. The reason is that clause 5 is premised on references to: A statement or disclosure made, or a document produced, by a witness in the course of giving evidence before the Commission As Senator Haines said, on the basis of information I just gave her, we found out only today that no witness had formally appeared before the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to make a statement or to produce a document as a witness. Of course documents have been tendered to the Commission in the form of allegations, supporting evidence, and so on, but not in such a way that this clause would bite upon them. We were not to know that because it is a parliamentary commission of inquiry and the Executive Government does not go poking around in the internal affairs of parliamentary commissions. We have due and proper respect for the separation of powers and all those things. It was only when someone involved with the Commission saw the Bill-not much more recently than the Opposition has seen it, despite its yowls to that effect-that the Commission said that there was nothing on which this clause could bite because, as some may not have known, there had been no witnesses. I suggest that we can cut short what might otherwise have been a prolonged debate on the merits of admissibility clauses by simply voting for the removal of this provision. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.58) —The comment I want to make relates to the matter raised by Senator Georges in his contribution. He sought to put upon all senators, in particular members of the Opposition, the fact that somehow it is to their discredit that we are dealing with repeal legislation. If anyone deserves censure for getting this Parliament into that position, it is the Government which refused to deal in a proper fashion from the outset with all the allegations against the judge. This Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry should not have been and would not have been necessary and this legislation would not have been presented to Parliament had the Government taken seriously and properly its obligations to clear up at an earlier stage the matters in relation to the allegations against His Honour. Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I must make the point that Senator Puplick is saying nothing that bears upon the clause. I frankly and cheerfully acknowledge that neither did Senator Georges, but in a sense he was making up for Senator Durack's opening burst, which again had nothing to do with the particular clause under consideration. There has been a reasonable amount of evening up. Perhaps, after Senator Puplick has spoken for another minute or two, honourable senators will let the matter rest there and return to the Bill. By all means Senator Puplick should continue for another minute, but I think that that would be about right. The CHAIRMAN —The point of order is valid. Senator Durack's contribution was relevant to clause 3, so it was in order. Senator Georges was allowed some latitude because of his obvious emotional involvement in the matter. Senator Puplick may reply to Senator Georges but he should not develop the argument for too long. Senator PUPLICK —Mr Chairman, I will accept your strictures in that regard and, indeed, those of Senator Gareth Evans. I am glad to see that once again Senator Gareth Evans is fast to his feet to protect the interests of his mate, in this case Senator Georges, on whom previously he would not have made any interruption. Nevertheless, the point remains one that needs to be answered. If Senator Georges is to be put in a position where he can, in fact, say that we have been brought to this situation because of the actions of this Parliament, it needs to be put upon the record that the party of which he is a member and the Caucus of which he is a member had the capacity to resolve this matter years ago. If the Government, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and, indeed, the previous Attorney-General had had any sense of propriety about how to handle this matter, Senator Georges is quite correct in saying that we would not now be in the position in which we find ourselves today. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack, I understand that you wish to withdraw your amendment, by leave? Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.01) —In the light of the views expressed by the Minister and the information he has given us, it would appear that the only remaining problem with clause 5 may be its very wide ambit. Certainly I do not want to see anything in the legislation which may inhibit the giving of evidence in relation to any material or information that may have been given to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. I think the Opposition's purpose would be served by simply voting against clause 5, so I will simply withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause negatived. Clause 6 agreed to. Clause 7 (Custody of documents). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.02) —There are amendments to this clause by the Government as well as by the Opposition. We are proposing the complete deletion of clause 7 and its rewriting. Accordingly, I move: Leave out clause 7, insert the following clause: ``7. (1) Where, at the commencement, information or documents are in the possession of the Commission and that information or those documents relate, or may relate, to the commission of an offence, or evidence of the commission of an offence, against a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, the Commission may, if in the opinion of the Commission it is appropriate to do so, communicate the information or documents to any one or more of the following- (a) the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of a State or of the Northern Territory; (b) the National Crime Authority; (c) the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or of the Police Force of a State or Territory; (d) the authority or person responsible for the administration or enforcement of a law referred to in this section. ``(2) Any document that is in the possession of the Commission at the commencement which is not disposed of in accordance with sub-section (1), and which was obtained by the Commission pursuant to section 13 of the repealed Act, shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement, be returned to the National Crime Authority. ``(3) Any document that is in the possession of the Commission at the commencement and which is not disposed of in accordance with sub-section (1) or (2) shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement, be placed in the custody of the Presiding Officers jointly. ``(4) Documents placed in the custody of the Presiding Officers in accordance with sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be records in the possession of the Senate and of the House of Representatives jointly, and shall be disposed of in accordance with the Archives Act 1983, subject to any resolution passed by each House of the Parliament relating to the disposal of those documents. ``(5) Notwithstanding the repeal of the repealed Act by this Act, the repealed Act shall continue to have effect after the commencement for the purpose of, and to the extent necessary for, compliance with this section.''. There has been a great deal of debate about clause 7 and its effect. I do not think there is really any doubt about its effect as its stands. It is an absolutely outrageous and indefensible clause and the Government now recognises that and has proposed an amendment to it which the Opposition believes is inadequate. We believe that clause 7 should be amended, if not exactly in the terms of our amendment, certainly along those lines. To that extent I am open to any suggestions during rational debate about how my proposed amendment to replace clause 7 could be worded. I have an open mind on it. I acknowledge that we have had very little time to work out a completely suitable alternative code to the totally outrageous provisions of clause 7 which were originally proposed by the Government but from which it now resiles. I suppose one should give credit where credit is due. The Government has proposed a clause which was going to completely bury forever these documents, but it now proposes to simply bury them completely for 30 years, and thereafter for an indefinite time, depending upon the jointly exercised discretion of the Presiding Officers. We believe both these proposals are quite wrong and we have sought to put forward a principled approach to this difficult question. Our first limb under 7 (1) simply picks up the provision that is in section 34 of the existing Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act. That expresses the principle, which obviously is accepted by the Government, that any documents which the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry has, whether it generated the material itself or they were documents given to it by somebody else-say, documents it obtained from the National Crime Authority under the provisions of section 13 in the existing Act-which may be relevant to the commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State, may be communicated at the discretion of the Commission to any appropriate law enforcement authority, whether it be the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of a State, the National Crime Authority or a police force of the Commonwealth or of a State. As I have said, that is a principle which seems to be accepted by the Government. Certainly it is a principle to which the Opposition adheres. That principle is already in the existing Act and it should have been retained in the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill 1986. The Government has sought to answer this amendment by saying that over the last few days the Commission, in the light of this decision to repeal the legislation, apparently has been giving consideration to this question and that the Government would undertake that it would not present this Bill for royal assent until such time as the Commission had been able to complete that task. I draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that clause 2 of the Bill, which we have already passed, provides that the Bill will come into operation on the day it receives royal assent. Therefore, if we pass this legislation tonight, the Government could easily, without any dramatic midnight flits to Yarralumla, have this Bill in force at a fairly early hour tomorrow morning. We have been asked by Senator Gareth Evans, on behalf of the Government, to accept some assurance that the Government will not do that. In fact, the Government has such a dedication to the prosecution of criminals in this country, such a dedication to the legal processes of this country and such a reputation for honour and a dedication to the proper processes of the law and the democratic process that we should be prepared to accept its undertaking. I am very much afraid and regret to have to say that the Opposition is simply not prepared to accept those assurances by the Government in the light of its record in this matter. I have already been through this sorry episode of the way in which the Government has behaved. We have not been told what the Government or the Commission was about. Frankly, I do not believe that the Government really adverted to this problem at all until the Press really gave it the works this morning and the Government was alerted to the enormity of what it was trying to do. There was the spectacle this morning of the Government, or at least the Minister at the table on behalf of the Government, I presume-maybe on behalf of himself, I do not know and I suppose it does not matter-trying to suppress the tabling in this Senate today of the reasons for judgment, the purely legal reasoning of the Commission, in relation to section 72 of the Constitution. Despite the fact that that document had been given by the Commission to the Presiding Officers and the Presiding Officers were about to table it in the proper discharge of their duties, this morning there was an attempt by the Government to suppress it. Why would we in the Opposition accept any assurances or undertakings by the Government on this matter at all? We certainly do not. Therefore it is most important that we have this principle contained in the new Bill. It should not disappear out the window, as it could by the Government flitting out to Government House tonight and getting royal assent. The second point is that we believe that any documents which have been received by the Commission from the National Crime Authority under section 13 should be returned to the Authority. There does not seem to be any argument about that. The third point is that the remaining documents should be placed in the custody of the Presiding Officers. The fourth point-this is the big difference between us and the Government-is that those documents should then come under the provisions of the Archives Act, subject however to any motion passed by each House of Parliament relating to their disposal. So it still would remain within the power of the Parliament to make other arrangements about their disposal, but if it did not do so the disposal of those documents would not be left to the discretion of the Presiding Officers. I think that would be a very unreasonable discretion to leave to those people. We do have the Archives Act, which was the subject of lengthy consideration and debate in this Parliament some time ago. That would appear to be a very adequate means of disposing of this problem. As I understand it, that legislation was supported in a bi-partisan way and it is working perfectly well. The essential feature of that Act is that it protects these documents for 30 years, although there is provision in special circumstances for some documents to be made available earlier than that. But in general they are protected for 30 years. Thereafter the general rule of that Act is that the documents are available for historians and others to write the history of the nation. There seems to be no reason, apart from the reason I gave earlier in the debate, for some of the attempts by the Government clearly to put Mr Justice Murphy in some unique position whereby his conduct can never be scrutinised by historians. I do not think the Government now maintains that position and I am pleased to have that recognition by it. It would have been unnecessary for us to have made such rather harsh comments had the Government let us into this secret at an earlier stage, but that was not its intention. It gave every indication until 10 o'clock this morning that that was its intention. If anything harsh has been said in this debate about those matters I am afraid the responsibility again is fairly and squarely on the Government and not on the Opposition. There is a savings provision as part of this amendment to enable the Commission to have the power to do the things that we say it ought to have in this clause. For all those reasons I have moved the Opposition's amendment, which is really a rewriting of clause 7. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.14) —The Government obviously rejects the attempt to rewrite clause 7 and to undermine one of the basic principles of this Bill, the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill, in the way that the Opposition has attempted. We do, however, have an amendment of our own. Is it appropriate for me to move that at this stage? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —No, we will get rid of this one. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, that is an appropriate thing for me to do, Mr Temporary Chairman. I accept that. Let me just say that the Opposition's concern with the Government's clause 7 seems to be twofold. Firstly, its argument, which it has been beating the drum about during the morning but much less robustly since, is that there is no opportunity in the way in which the present clause is drafted for information in the possession of the Commission of Inquiry to get out to law enforcement agencies where that might prove to be appropriate. Secondly, it is concerned about the archival provisions, and the particular one that the Government proposes to introduce to amend clause 7, and their allegedly uniquely circumscribed character. As to the Opposition's first concern in relation to the disposal of material, I hope by now that concern has been sufficiently answered without my needing to explain yet again how that material will go back to existing law enforcement agencies, where it has originated from them, by virtue of section 18 of the present Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Act and how, by virtue of section 34 of the present Act, the Commission is in the process of making some of that material available, to the extent it thinks it might be useful, to the National Crime Authority and perhaps to other agencies as well. I find vulgar in the extreme, and quite at odds with the normal parliamentary courtesies of this place, Senator Durack's assertion that he will not accept the undertakings that I have given on behalf of the Government in relation to the time available for these processes to work themselves out. An undertaking is an undertaking, Senator Durack. I think if I were to act in breach of an undertaking I would personally, and on behalf of the Government, deserve the censure of the Senate. There is no question of that occurring and I find the suggestion that it might extremely offensive and not befitting a-- Senator Walters —We could not trust you as far as we could throw you. Senator GARETH EVANS —I could not throw the senator very far. Senator Puplick —There is no reason to admit your weakness in this matter. Senator GARETH EVANS —Hercules himself. Can I proceed to the second part of the Opposition's concern, and that is the archives? It is the case that the Government has responded to concern that has been expressed about what was an oversight. As I frankly conceded earlier today, in the rush of events we had not thought about the longer term problems that would be associated with people who may have a reasonable interest at some time in gaining access to this material. That was present in our minds to the extent that we rejected the concept of destruction of the documents which had been pressed upon us from various quarters as being appropriate for anything, however outrageous the content of those documents might be. That does offend what Senator Puplick would no doubt describe as the historian's sensitivity, and we were not intending to do anything of the kind. It is the case that there ought to be some appropriate archival rule proscribed for this. However, there is a concern that the normal archives rules, with their exemptions, including in particular the capacity for the Prime Minister of the day to single handedly release any document or any class of documents that he in effect chooses to. Confident though we are, of course, that there will not be a Prime Minister of another colour for some considerable time, we did not nonetheless think it appropriate that a matter of this kind should be subject to political vagaries in any short term context. It is, if one likes, a unique provision that is here proposed-when I get around to amending it, and I have foreshadowed that. It is different from just applying the Archives Act in the ordinary way. But as I sought to explain earlier, we are faced with a unique set of circumstances. Let me repeat: For the first time in the history of this country we have had a commission of inquiry established with full, wide ranging investigative powers, privileges and protections, not to inquire into some particular incident or some particular course of conduct that is identified for the purpose of the inquiry, but rather to open up the entire life of a person, a human being, in public and in private and expose that to scrutiny with all that that entails. That is a unique thing, a uniquely draconian and uniquely far reaching thing to do. I say to Senator Durack, who is smirking away there in the corner, that he now regards it an appropriate precedent to be employed against all sorts of people in the future if he gets his way. But it is not something we ought to embark upon with any lightness of heart at all, and I hope it never will be again. Having been embarked upon on this occasion, for better or for worse, it is appropriate to treat the matter in the way that the Government proposes. For all those various reasons I do urge the Committee to reject the amendment to clause 7 and in due course to accept the Government's amendment, which I will formally move in a moment. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.19) —The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has identified two areas which he says have given the Opposition particular cause for concern about this clause. He has said, in effect, that if the Opposition's amendment is passed it will undermine the basic principles of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill. The two concerns are, firstly, our concern about the access of law enforcement agencies to this material and, secondly, the establishment of a somewhat different and unique archival regime for the treatment of the material in the possession of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. However, there is a third element of concern which I believe is just as strong as the others and on the basis of which the Opposition amendment ought to be accepted. I refer particularly to the regime which would be established by clause 7 (4) of the Opposition's amendment. This touches upon the matter of the relationship between the Presiding Officers and the chambers. Under the regime which the Government seeks to put in place certain duties and restrictions are laid upon the Presiding Officer, in terms of his or her ability to release, even to the Parliament, material which is in his or her possession. The Presiding Officer is constrained by the Government's regime in clause 7-even in the way it would be amended by the Government's foreshadowed amendment-not to release certain information even if the House determines that the information ought to be released. There is in fact a double veto. There is the extent to which the Presiding Officer of the chamber concerned is precluded from releasing the information and there is the further veto that the matter also has to be undertaken in consultation with the Presiding Officer in the other chamber. The Opposition's amendment in proposed clause 7 (4) would make it clear that the documents placed in the custody of the Presiding Officer-those documents which are in his or her possession and are distinct from those which have been returned to the originating authority or law enforcement agency, or those which have been passed by the Commission to any of the authorities mentioned in proposed clause 7 (1)-shall be deemed to be records in the possession of the Senate and the House of Representatives jointly and shall be disposed of subject to any resolution passed by each House of the Parliament relating to the disposal of those documents. In other words, it establishes the clear principle that the documents in the possession of the Presiding Officer are to be taken as documents actually in the possession of the chamber over which that Presiding Officer is presiding and the determination as to their fate at any time lies in the hands of the chambers. It does not lie in the situation in which the Presiding Officer would be constrained by legislation from not giving effect to the resolution of the chamber. I cannot remember the precise quotation, but I recall that one of the great parliamentary events is supposed to have been when Speaker Lenthall addressed Charles I on his arrival in the House, telling him that the Speaker had neither eyes to see nor ears to hear nor tongue to speak save by the way in which that honourable House gave him leave. But this legislation, as established by the Government, would say to the Presiding Officer: `Regardless of the opinion of the chamber over which you are presiding and regardless of the direction that chamber may give you as Presiding Officer in possession of documents, you are constrained from giving effect to the will of the Parliament. Not only do you have difficulty, but the will of one chamber in that respect is to be subject to the veto of the Presiding Officer in the other, if it came to that'. Senator Georges —But the chambers can change the legislation. Senator PUPLICK —I believe that the correct way to proceed is in accordance with the principle that the Opposition is laying down in sub-clause (4) of its amendment, namely, that when the material comes into the possession of the Presiding Officers it shall be regarded as being in a situation in which its disposal is a matter for the resolution of the two Houses. If the Houses decide that the material shall be disposed of in a particular fashion, this piece of legislation should not constrain that undertaking on the part of the Houses. Senator Georges says that if that is a problem, just repeal the legislation. I put it to Senator Georges that we should not have to go through the exercise of seeking to repeal a piece of legislation in order to give effect to the principle that the Houses of Parliament have the right to dispose of material lodged with their Presiding Officers. We should not, therefore, enact the Government's proposed clause 7 as far as this matter is concerned and establish those restraints in the first place. We should take the opportunity now to establish that principle and establish it clearly. I say in conclusion on this clause that it is of some interest to look at the information the Minister has provided to us about the return of documents already having been undertaken. It is not just a matter that this has had to be dragged out of the Government, but it makes a total nonsense of the subsequent clauses of this legislation dealing with the prosecutions of people who print or disclose information derived from documents received or in the possession of the Commission, since it will undoubtedly be impossible to prove that the document was leaked from the Parliamentary Commission rather than from the National Crime Authority, the Attorney-General's Department, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions or whoever it was that gave these documents to the Commission in the first place and has now had them returned. Who will be able to prove whether the leaked document was the National Crime Authority's original document or a copy of the document retained on file by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry and leaked from that source? All that will mean is that the whole regime falls to the ground and presumably the officers of the Australian Federal Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions or whoever is involved will have to scurry around trying to demonstrate the source of this particular leak if it is to proceed with some sort of prosecution under clause 8. The very admission by the Government of the way in which this material has been handled goes to expose the way in which this legislation has been drafted on the run, amended on the run and undermined on the run. It indicates not only the extent to which this piece of legislation should not be given effect to in any fashion, but also specifically why the Government's proposed regime in proposed clause 7 is so totally unsatisfactory. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.28) —Senator Puplick is always a bit harsh on the Government and me on these occasions. Here we are behaving like a legislative chamber-not just a rubber stamp belting our way through legislation, endorsing it and kicking it out the door again; we are actually talking about it, arguing about it and fixing up a few things as they appear along the way-yet here he is getting grumpy about it. Let me respond to the third alleged advantage of Senator Puplick's clause 7 over ours-the vesting of this discretion in the Presiding Officers rather than in the two Houses as a whole. Let me say two things about that: Firstly, it does not demonstrate much confidence on the part of Senator Puplick or the Opposition that they should have that feeling towards the Presiding Officers, who for all sorts of other purposes honourably and effectively represent the interests of the respective chambers. The other point I make is that it is really a mirror image of the sort of provision in the Archives Act, which vests in the Prime Minister personally the discretion to make available archival material, rather than in the government of the day, the Governor-in-Council or any of the other familiar euphemisms. No doubt the Prime Minister would take advice and consult his Cabinet colleagues on a matter of sensitivity that arose under the Archives Act. Equally, one would anticipate that the Presiding Officers would take account of the prevailing currents and views of opinion and so on. It is really for those sorts of reasons that the legislation has been drafted in this way. It does not need all the fire and brimstone and enthusiasm that Senator Puplick brought to the debate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.31) —May I just ask for a clarification from the Minister. Is he saying that under the Government's proposed regime, if the Senate and the House of Representatives both resolve to direct their Presiding Officers to make material in the possession of those Presiding Officers available to the chambers, the Presiding Officers would have the discretion to do so or would be empowered to do so? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.31) —We are talking about two situations. One is that of the class B material which is now vested in the discretion of the Presiding Officers and is not subject to any overriding provision about directions from the Parliament as a whole. The other material is the class A material, and I am here referring to the Bill as it will look when hopefully it is amended by the passage of my foreshadowed amendment, which vests a discretion in the Presiding Officers to make such material available after 30 years. There are parallels to be drawn-not exact, but parallels nonetheless-between the Archives Act vesting a discretionary authority in the Prime Minister and this amendment vesting a limited authority, as it is only a few years down the track, in the Presiding Officers. The reason for making the archives rule as it is in my amendment is as I have described-the peculiarly unique character, if that is not a tautology, of this Commission material and the circumstances in which it is derived. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Knowles, S. C. McIntosh, G. D. Chaney, F. M. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Sheil, G. McClelland, DouglasTeague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendments (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) Page 2, clause 7, line 25, after ``law'' insert ``, during the period of 30 years after the commencement''. (2) Page 2, clause 7, lines 38 to 40, leave out sub-clause (4), substitute the following sub-clause: ``(4) Notwithstanding any other law, a person is not entitled to have access to, or to make use of- (a) a class A document after the end of the period of 30 years after the commencement; or (b) a class B document at any time, except in accordance with the written authority of the Presiding Officers.''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8 (Disclosure). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.40) —The Opposition has been deeply troubled by clause 8. It is clear now that the Government has also seen the difficulties with its clause 8 and it is proposing an amendment to it that we do not believe is adequate, although it may make some improvement to it. The interesting thing is that the Government has obviously realised, at long last, that everything that has been said by the Opposition and by others elsewhere about the enormity of clause 8 is justified. We do not believe that it is sufficient to tinker around with clause 8. We believe that the clause proceeds on a totally wrong basis. The amendment we propose is consistent with a whole range of similar situations. It is in accordance with our efforts to introduce some principle into the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill 1986. There are a great many agencies that have been created by this Parliament in recent years which have possession of sensitive personal material. It is desired by the Parliament to protect that material in a reasonable, responsible way. That is done by putting an obligation on the members and staff of the agency to protect the documents, the information, and making it a criminal offence for the members or staff of the commission or the agency to divulge that information except in accordance with statute. That is what we propose here as it is the right, principal and consistent course, and is in accordance with the precedent of other decisions of this Parliament. In addition, this has been the principle of official secrets legislation in this country and elsewhere. The sections of the Crimes Act dealing with the protection of official secrets have followed the same principle. That Act has made it a crime for the person who has possession of the information which is to be kept secret to breach those provisions and he is visited with sanctions if he does so. All such legislation, of course, has left open the question of what is the responsibility of someone who comes innocently into possession of such information. None of that legislation on our statute books states that the person who has innocent possession of that information is entitled to publish it. I think I am pretty right in saying that. Maybe the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) can state where that is not the case. It certainly is the case under the Crimes Act and in other legislation, which precedent we have followed in our amendment. It is the basis of the D-notice to the Press, under which the Press has, by way of a gentlemen's agreement, accepted that principle. The Press in this country has been free to publish information if it knows or is in league with the person who unlawfully discloses that information. If it has obtained information innocently it publishes it freely as no government has prosecuted any newspaper for publishing information which by statute it is an offence for the person who has custody of it to disclose through the Press. If Senator Gareth Evans can prove me wrong I will be pleased to hear it. It would be an extraordinarily bold government, a very much bolder government than the present Government, if it really knew what it was doing, that changed that. That is clearly what the great concern in this morning's Press is all about. It is about the complete reversal of those precedents and those standards. Maybe the Government did not realise that. It has now come up with an amendment to try to correct that position. I do not happen to think that what the Government has come up with will do that, but that is another matter. We have been concerned about two aspects of clause 8. We have been concerned about the wider aspect of it, namely, that on a literal interpretation it would prevent the disclosure of not only any information generated within the Commission but also any information which happens to be in the possession of the Commission. I do not want to go into a legal argument about the literal interpretation of statutes, but I can assure the chamber that it is not just my opinion but the opinion of a great many other lawyers who have read this legislation that the literal interpretation of clause 8 could have the widest ramifications not only in respect of disclosure by the Press but also for the law enforcement agencies and others the Government believes should have the right to the information and to use it. Clause 8 could well prevent that and could impose draconian penalties on people for disclosure. The other concern we have about clause 8 is one I have already mentioned, namely, the freedom of the Press to publish information which it obtains in an innocent way. Unless that is clearly made unlawful-- Senator Gareth Evans —How is it likely to obtain it innocently? Senator DURACK —The fundamental rule of statute interpretation is that penal provisions have to be perfectly clearly laid down and that they are always interpreted strictly. That is the basis of what I am saying about the way in which the statutes have been applied in the past. This particular clause completely changes that. No guilty intention or knowledge is required. It is purely a statement of objective fact. If somebody discloses a matter which is derived from a document or information received by or in the possession of the Commission and that person publishes it, whether he knows it came from the Commission or elsewhere, he is in breach of this provision. That is what clause 8 literally means. The Government has become worried about that, and for good reason. It is trying to patch it up and we can argue later about how successfully it has done that. The Opposition is approaching this matter from a completely different standpoint. Our standpoint is based upon the precedent of a great many other statutes that have created agencies. This matter has been dealt with in legislation covering the Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman and other agencies that have been created in recent times. That legislation protects this sort of information in the way suggested by our amendment. Our clause 8 is based on the precedents of many other statutes passed by this Parliament in recent years. As I said, it is based also on the way in which official secrets are protected in the Crimes Act. We believe that that is all that is required here and all that should be provided for. Accordingly, I move my amendment concerning clause 8: Leave out clause 8, insert the following clause: ``8. (1) A person who is, or has at any time been, a member of the Commission, a member of the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission shall not, directly or indirectly, disclose to any other person or make use of any document or information to which the first-mentioned person has had access by reason of being or having been such a member or counsel. ``Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both. ``(2) Sub-section (1) does not prevent or hinder- (a) the performance of any act otherwise authorised by this Act or the repealed Act as continued in effect by this Act; or (b) the participation of a person in any investigation undertaken by a person or organisation referred to in section 7, or any proceedings, in which use is made of information or documents referred to in section 7.''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.51) —The basic and overwhelming problem with the Opposition amendment is that it applies the pro- hibition on disclosure only to the Commission itself. It applies it to the Commissioners-not that it is very polite to contemplate that they might disclose anything-a member of the staff or the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission. The amendment would not extend any kind of prohibition on disclosure by anyone else. It must be acknowledged that in the particular circumstances of this Commission of Inquiry the risk of disclosure of desperately defamatory material by someone other than a member of the Commission is quite high. Let us remember what we are talking about here. We are not talking about documents originating from outside the Commission, because there is no prohibition or restraint on the originators of documents in fact choosing to publish those documents themselves. If someone sends in a set of allegations, whether or not the particular document embodying those allegations is sent back to the individual does not limit the capacity of that individual to publish it either personally or with the assistance of a newspaper or some organisation of that kind. Senator Haines —It does not say that at all. Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that it has not been made clear enough-I know that that is a point that Senator Haines had made publicly-we can fix that up. We will come to that when I get to my own amendment, which I will be foreshadowing in a moment. However, the problem is that in regard to this Commission we are not talking only about documents generated externally and which have been in the Commission's possession, and which may or may not be in the Commission's possession any longer. Those documents can be utilised, at least under our Bill, by the originators if not by anyone else. They can get into the public domain if the originators want them to get into the public domain. As I say, there is no prohibition on that. However, there is another class of documents which is likely to be very sensitive and crucial. I refer to documents originating from within the Commission itself-such as the list of allegations which obviously has been prepared and which is the subject of various Committee documents that have now been made public; for example, reports, opinions and so on. I refer also to internal analysis of those allegations and the cross-referencing of material, and the products of such investigation and information gathering as have been initiated or generated from within the Commission and about which Senator Georges spoke earlier. I have no idea how much of that material exists but I am sure that by now, after several weeks of operation and the Commission having got to the stage of its report that it has, that there is quite a bulk of that material. I am sure that it is enormously sensitive material and that it is potentially enormously damaging. Let us remember again that none of this has been tested by cross-examination; it is made up merely of allegations and purported but as yet untested evidence. Let us assume, I think realistically, that heaps of material exists within the Commission. It becomes a matter of ensuring that the material does not leak out or, if it does leak out, that there are serious disincentives to anyone else using it. Senator Durack says that when one is talking about bodies empowered to gather information of a sensitive character the usual legislative practice is simply to have a clause in there of the kind that he himself has moved, which imposes rigorous, sometimes perhaps draconian, sanctions against the members of the institution or the organisation itself. Thus he cited the Ombudsman and, I seem to remember, the National Companies and Securities Commission and a miscellany of other agencies of that kind of which that is so. There is no wider disclosure provision; the reliance is on the prohibition against the body itself. Again, I point to the unique character of this exercise. Let me repeat: Never in the history of this country has a body with coercive powers been set in train to examine at large, in an open-ended way, the life of a human being. Would any of us cope with that kind of scrutiny? Could any of us contemplate having whatever is turned up by anyone around the place who might be minded to make allegations getting unhindered, or less than totally hindered, into the public domain? Of course we would not welcome that and we should not be anaesthetised by the mass of this material which has already been circulated about poor Lionel Murphy into thinking that there is something more reasonable about that in these particular circumstances. Yes, this is a harsh provision; designedly so-but for a very good reason. As to its harshness, might I just say something about the penalties because they have been the subject of some public comment. I see that the Opposition is not fussing about the $5,000 or imprisonment for six months because it picked that up itself. Indeed, so it should have because that is a commonly recurring thing. However, there has been concern about the fine of $100,000 for a corporate defendant. I suppose that as a corporate defendant is not contemplated in the Opposition's draft it is omitted anyway. I refer to the fact that the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended in its final report of October 1984 that the penalty for a person who commits a breach of parliamentary privilege should be a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. On the basis that this, as a parliamentary commission, appropriately attracts parliamentary privilege sorts of sanctions, the Bill proposes to adopt that recommendation. Senator Durack —That has not been passed by Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS —True, but we are getting there. The Joint Select Committee recommended a penalty of $10,000 for corporations which commit a breach of parliamentary privilege. However, the Government is of the view that a penalty of that amount for bodies corporate simply is not a sufficient deterrent and would be easily absorbed as a business overhead by many such bodies corporate. The level of $100,000 that is here settled upon has not, however, just been dragged out of the ether. It is the same level of penalty as that applying to bodies corporate which contravene Part V of the Trade Practices Act. That is the reference point that has been here applied. I mention that should any honourable senator be minded to make that point. As to the drafting of the existing clause 8, which Senator Durack has indicated he does not like, I acknowledge that there has been some misunderstanding of the effect of this particular clause. That might be a product of the language chosen by the draftsman even though I think that when properly construed and looked at in the context of the legislation as a whole the language is perfectly apt and precise. The difficulty seems to be with the expression `derived' in sub-clause 8 (a) which states: . . . any allegation relating to the conduct of the Honourable Lionel Keith Murphy derived from a document received, obtained or prepared, or information received or obtained, by the Commission . . . I think there is a concern that this language is not sufficiently precise and that it does not make it sufficiently clear that it is not the document itself and the originator of that document, who are here the subject of attention, but rather someone else who gets access to that document and then uses the material in it and publishes it or discloses it that is the target. In the Macquarie Dictionary the word `derived' means `to receive or obtain from a source of origin'. The only circumstances in which sub-clause 8 (a) is intended to apply, and we believe would apply, is where the only source of information is the particular document or the particular information that was before the Commission. If the substance of that document or information was known from any other source it would not be caught by the prohibition. That was our intent in drafting the provision in this way. I think that that is a proper construction and interpretation of it. It is consistent with everything I have been saying all day. However, I acknowledge that perhaps the terminology is a little unusual and not as clear as it might be in distinguishing between the position of the proper possessor, or proper originator or creator of the document in question, and somebody who might get inappropriate access to it. With that in mind I foreshadow that I will move an amendment later on which leaves out the words `derived from a document received, obtained or prepared' and substitutes, rather, the expression `which is known to the person only from a document received, obtained or prepared'. I think that much more clearly conveys the intention of the clause itself and avoids some of the problems of the perhaps unduly literalistic interpretation Senator Durack referred to before. There is another element to the Government's amendment which again has been prompted by concerns expressed by the Australian Democrats. I refer to the concern about the practical viability of this clause when one is talking not so much about a document being leaked but rather something in the nature of information, perhaps orally obtained and not around in documentary form. The feeling was that to prosecute someone for a disclosure based on, as it would have to be now, information known only to that person from information before the Commission is perhaps being a bit unduly harsh and perhaps not especially realistic in the light of how real world prosecutions may run and that it would be better and simpler all round to confine the scope of this prohibition to straight documentary material so defined. That is in explanation and anticipation of the Government's amendment to this clause. Given the nature of this Commission and the material before it, which are unique in Australia's history, it is important that we have a clause that goes further than the usual non-disclosure clauses and extends the deterrent, disincentives or penalty to persons other than those within the Commission. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.02) —We have before us from the Opposition an amendment to the clause contained in the Bill, to which Senator Gareth Evans has foreshadowed that the Government will also propose an amendment. It is all reasonable Alice in Wonderland stuff, but quite frankly let us look at what will happen so that we may be able to work out what ought to occur. There are three types of documents that we are now discussing. Firstly, there are the documents which contain allegations submitted to the Commission. Secondly, there is a range of documents that were commissioned or otherwise delivered to the Commission, which are of a legal nature and which are now being disclosed, so we can put them aside. The third set of documents is the working papers of the Commission. The first type of document, that is, the allegations, by definition must be in the possession of people in the community other than members of the Commission. In other words, already they are documents to which people have access and with which people may, of their own choosing, do what they will. If it is defamatory material people or the newspapers can take a risk, but at least one person in the community other than members of the Commission must have access to those allegations, that is, the person who made them. I think that type can really be put aside. We are reduced to the working papers of the Commission. Quite frankly, I think they ought to be shredded. Let us look at the comparison that we want to make. We are talking about a parliamentary commission. Let us look at what happens to committees of this chamber or of this Parliament. They have similar types of documents. They have submissions which are archived. The committees publish reports which are made public and which are archived. The working papers of a committee are not kept; they are trashed. They are the types of things with which committees work as they prepare their final reports; they are not kept. Any documents of a legal nature that are received by a committee are kept, along with the submissions. We have the same types of material when we prepare committee reports. What I think are much more important in terms of both Senator Durack's amendment and the Government's proposed amendment are the problems of what happens to the documents. Senator Durack has covered the first leg of the journey only. He has talked about the Commission as it now exists, its staff as it now exists and the possession of information and documents relating to that Commission. Senator Durack's amendment will cover those people at a future time, but by nature of this Bill those documents are to be delivered to another set of people who are not covered by Senator Durack's amendment. Senator Gareth Evans —The Presiding Officers. Senator MACKLIN —The Presiding Officers and presumably their staff. Unless our Presiding Officers cart mountains of this material around with them, some other people will have access to this stuff. We are in Alice in Wonderland because we are carting around this stuff at which nobody will ever be able to look and which will be of no earthly use to anybody. I do not think Senator Durack's amendment covers the proposition of the next leg of the journey. Senator Evans's amendment, on the other hand, does not seem to me to deal with the practical problems that may then go to when we may want to use the clause, that is, when we may want to launch a prosecution. Pray tell: How would anybody know that he wants to launch a prosecution? Other than the commissioners and staff, nobody knows what is in the documents; but the commissioners and staff are not allowed to tell anybody. May I put to an amendment which has already been carried, that this overrules all other laws. Does it go into the courts so that a prosecutor cannot use the material, or is that to be exempt? If courts are to be exempt, what about this chamber? Under our privileges are we to be exempt? How does the prosecution know that this clause has been breached? Maybe the Presiding Officers are the ones who launch this prosecution. Who launches it? Would it be the Attorney-General? But the Attorney-General does not know what is in these papers, so he cannot do it. The Director of Public Prosecutions cannot launch it because he does not know what is in them. How do we then prosecute the case? This is absurd. What do we do when presumably the Press publishes this material? I cannot imagine anybody else wanting to publish working documents of the Commission, God help us, and I do not know what Press would want to publish those either. Senator Gareth Evans —What about a list of allegations? Senator MACKLIN —All right; let us take a list of allegations. Let us say that the National Times on Sunday is to publish a list of allegations. Senator Gareth Evans —With summaries of supporting material derived from the allegations that have been made. It is pretty heady stuff, isn't it? Senator MACKLIN —All right, it is heady stuff. Presumably the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions will know that that is one of the documents. I would like the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to tell us how the Director of Public Prosecutions would find that out-he will have plenty of time to tell us-or who informs the Director of Public Prosecutions of that fact; presumably the Presiding Officer does so. I am worried, I must admit, by a point that Senator Puplick raised a while ago about what we are doing to the Presiding Officers in drawing them into this area, what their standing and obligations will be with regard to the ongoing nature of this material and with regard to the prosecution of these. I am more concerned about how, when we have a person there, we are to make the foreshadowed amendment stick as a matter of pure prosecution. How do we prosecute that? Do we then go to the next point? Presumably we say to a member of the Press `What is your source?', or does that person merely sit on his hands and wait for the prosecution to prove its case? Senator Durack —They can't. Senator MACKLIN —It cannot prove its case. One of the Minister's concerns about Senator Durack's amendment was that one of the members or staff of the Commission may leak the material and then it would be very difficult to prosecute. I think that is perfectly true. We have already had a problem in this chamber in terms of a leak from a committee that was dealing with this matter. We found it almost impossible to find out who did the leaking. I am not sure whether it was a leakee or a leakor. Obviously it had to be someone who was in possession of the material. Senator Walters —It was impossible. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. I was a member of a committee which publicly asked each of the persons who were in possession of that material, on oath, and we did not get anywhere. I think Senator Durack's proposition also is a very difficult one to articulate in relation to trying to get anything done with it. I do not think we could get a prosecution out of that or out of the Government's proposition, either. I am not sure what it is we are doing in waving these flags at people when essentially they are inoperative. Ultimately one has to fall back on the fact that these working documents really should not continue in existence. The stuff that will be in existence are the allegations-and they will remain in existence anyhow-and the legal information which we have already paid for as a community. I do not know what use that will be to anybody but no doubt it will be interesting to read through, for academics to work over and for people to get theses out of. I cannot see any practical way of dealing with the working paper in a way which will protect it. I do not think that either under Senator Durack's proposition or the Government's proposition we could launch a successful, feasible prosecution that would not put us into the position of gaoling journalists, for example, for six months. I am not quite sure what this Government is up to, but I know that it certainly would not be up to gaoling journalists for six months. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.12) —The Government might well be in the business of fining newspaper corporations large sums of money for blatant and flagrant breaches of a law of non-disclosure which is put onto the stat- ute books for very good and sound reasons which-- Senator Macklin —You have to prove the documents. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will get to that. Let me take just one point at a time in the great melange of excitement that has emerged from Senator Macklin having suddenly got absorbed in this debate. That is a path one might choose to go down if one were embarking on a journey as a government of seeking to avoid the disclosure of material which is profoundly and disgracefully defamatory, as this material will be because it will only be allegations, supporting assertions and untested evidence; let us repeat all that. There are reasons-and I do not want to repeat them ad nauseum-why this material should not get into the public domain. I do not understand Senator Macklin to be contesting that. His bottom line is not to let the information out; his bottom line is to burn it, to shred it. We have some sympathy for that when it comes to this material but book burning went out of fashion in mediaeval Florence and it has not been terribly successfully done by anyone very attractive since. Whatever the squalid character of the material and however much it might not deserve ever to see the public light-and I cannot believe that any of this stuff will-I have a natural abhorrence of the concept of getting over a difficulty by destroying the problem, by destroying the evidence. I do not know whether Opposition members share that view or not; they were a pretty good bunch of book burners in their time. In this particular context it is not really a viable option. One has to look for lesser options. Senator Macklin should appreciate that this is probably about the best we can do. There are always problems of proof in running any prosecution about anything and Directors of Public Prosecution are always whingeing away about the problems of proof besetting them. They are always telling Governments about the impossibility of chasing someone down some burrow who many people think ought to be chased. That happens all the time in a criminal context. Senator Haines —Here they have a law stopping them from finding out anything. Senator GARETH EVANS —But the problems of proof are not especially greater here than anywhere else. If a collection of allegations, let us say, is published as the allegations that have emerged from the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry-`exclusive scoop', that sort of thing-it will not be too hard, on the face of it, to establish the likely origin of that material by looking at the language of it, by seeking testimony in affidavit form in the first instance and subsequently orally in court if necessary from not just the Presiding Officers but also the officers of the Commission. They are able to be chased up easily enough. Unless they have been stolen, presumably there will be documents within the possession of the Presiding Officers to compare the allegations with and so on. If the Government's amendment is accepted there is another course open, again to weaken, I suppose, the force of this measure, and that is that if the documents themselves are not published as such but merely the information in them set out in some different way, the problems of proof are multiplied to that greater extent. If one is prepared to make non-prosecutable-as we are now prepared not to do-information derived from information before the Commission that provides another avenue. The legislation is not especially draconian in terms of the way in which, I guess, it is likely to operate because there are ways around it. There are ways in which, as it has been said, the original material not created within the Commission itself can get back into the public domain. But the legislation is important, even with all the limitations which I acknowledge in its likely effectiveness. There are not impossibilities but there are limitations. With all those limitations the legislation is still important because of the uniquely devastating nature of this kind of material and the unique circumstances in which it has been obtained-a parliamentary commission with all the royal commission powers established to explore the life of a human being. Under those circumstances surely disincentives, deterrents and penalties can be created for those who would, not innocently but maliciously, put this material into the public domain. As Senator Durack says, there is a presumption of malice if there is a penal clause operating as such and that would be read into it. I cannot imagine what an innocent disclosure would be likely to look like with this material getting out into the public domain through some leak from a Commission Officer or parliamentary officer in due course. I do not know what an innocent disclosure would look like and I cannot imagine that anyone getting this material out would deserve too much sympathy. But I think it is the best we can do. Obviously, there are big problems of principle involved-I frankly and cheerfully acknowledge them-in any sort of law, in any context whatsoever that is aimed at limiting disclosure. I am a freedom of information person. There are not many of us left in the Government these days. Senator Walters —Oh, you're joking! Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not joking. I have never been more fair dinkum. I believe in those principles. I believe in their importance. But even the best run freedom of information system in the world is full of appropriate exemptions for breaches of confidence regarding material of a kind which has no conceivably redeeming public merit and which has been obtained in the kind of circumstances that this material has been obtained in. I do not know whether Senator Macklin has any more specific questions. I acknowledge some of the points that he is making, but surely the destruction of this material is not the alternative. The only alternative is to go down the middle course, which has been chosen here, of stringent non-disclosure rules but by no means absolute ones. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.18) —I raised some questions when I spoke previously regarding Senator Durack's amendment. Would Senator Durack like to respond in terms of how he sees the proposition being dealt with at the next stage, that is, when the documents come into the possession of the Presiding Officers and, obviously, of the staff of the Presiding Officers. Perhaps Senator Durack could consider whether they ought also to be included in his amendment because at the moment the people who have access to the documents, that is, members of the Commission, are covered but the next group of people who will have access to them is not. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.19) —We believe that our amendment is adequate for its purpose. It seems to me that once the documents get into the hands of the Presiding Officers and other parliamentary officers, the various powers, prohibitions and sanctions that can be exercised over the misuse of documents by parliamentary officers will apply. I do not think we need to have any special rules to cover that. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. Macklin, M. J. Archer, B. R. Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Sanders, N. K. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Siddons, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Haines, J. Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Hill R. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Grimes, D. J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Georges, G. Knowles, S. C. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. McIntosh, G. D. Jessop, D. S. Grimes, D. J. Sheil, G. McClelland, Douglas Question so resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Durack's amendment No. 2 be inserted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.25) —A logical consequence of where we are now at would be for the Australian Democrats to oppose the insertion of Senator Durack's words on the basis that they clearly do not believe in there being any effective sanctions against the disclosure or publication of this material. Why they should bother to impose sanctions on the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry staff when the Commission is about to go out of existence and not to impose sanctions on parliamentary staff or anybody else who will be in possession of this material from now on, let alone anybody else who might come into the possession of this material, I simply do not know. It would be a thoroughly quixotic enterprise on the Australian Democrats' part to now support this proposal, particularly since they have indicated their preferred position is to shred the material entirely. I know it is suck-up-to-the-media time, but the behaviour of the Democrats tonight is totally incomprehensible and not such as to justify any respect from any self-respecting member of this chamber. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.26) — There is a further amendment consequential upon God knows what sub-section it now is-- The CHAIRMAN —I do not think your amendment, which you are looking at, Senator, fits very happily into Senator Durack's amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS —Whatever penalty we now have ought not to apply in relation to anything done in accordance with authority given under sub-section 7 (4), which is still on foot. It states: Notwithstanding any other law, a person is not entitled to have access to, or to make use of, a class B document except in accordance with the written authority of the Presiding Officers. Clearly we do not want that to apply in relation to Senator Durack's clause 8 (1). Do we not just call Senator Durack's amendment clause 8 (1) and insert my amendment as sub-clause (3)? I move: (3) Page 3, clause 8, add at the end the following sub-clause: `(2) Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to anything done in accordance with an authority given under sub-section 7 (4).'. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a third time. One technical problem has shown up in the drafting of Senator Durack's measure. That can be fixed up. Senator Georges —I should like to speak on the third reading. Senator Durack —It is time to go home. Senator Georges —I know it is time to go home. I think that we should all congratulate ourselves-- Senator Gareth Evans —Speak on the adjournment. Senator Georges —No. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.30) —Since I have been a member of Parliament, both in this chamber and-- Senator Haines —The standard of debate has dropped. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the honourable senator. I expected better of her, but now that she has adopted the role of Leader of the Australian Democrats I shall, no doubt, expect far worse. Since I have been a member of Parliament, both as a senator and as a member of the House of Representatives before then, I have been subjected to continual smears and attacks of a personal nature by members of the Australian Labor Party. I am prepared to wear that. I have always done so. It does not bother me. If it did, I would not have decided to come back for a second dose of it. As a result, I am not in the business of setting out to smear Labor senators. Although I intend to raise some serious matters, I do not intend to smear or make innuendoes against any members of the Government. However, I would like to draw to the Senate's attention that on two occasions the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has had the opportunity to respond to serious comments made very publicly indeed about him at the weekend in a Sydney newspaper. On both occasions, he decided against making a response of any substance. In case honourable senators are not aware of it, I seek leave to table the article entitled `The Keating-Anderson Connection', which appeared in the National Times on Sunday. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for the tabling of the document? Senator Georges —No. Leave not granted. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Because leave has not been granted as Senator Georges chose not to allow it to be tabled-- Senator Georges —Would you like me to explain why? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —If the honourable senator would like to follow me in the debate, he may do so. This puts me in a difficult situation. I had sought not to refer to the article. If it is not to be tabled, I am forced to refer to elements in the article, which I would certainly rather not do. Senator Georges —You are tabling the thing. You are making it a public document under the privilege of this Parliament. You cannot cover it by privilege in that way by tabling it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I do not imagine that that is a matter of moment. The Treasurer has had every opportunity since Sunday to issue whatever legal response he wants to. So far, I have not heard of any legal matters being raised. Senator Grimes —What are the accusations in the article? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —A range of comments are made. Senator Grimes —What are the specific accusations made in the article? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Clearly, Government senators lack knowledge of the content of the article. Senator Grimes —We have read the article. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —In those circumstances, it seems even more unfortunate that leave has not been granted to table the article. I am not seeking to incorporate the article; I simply want it tabled. Senator Georges —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I have to use the device of a point of order. You will have to be tolerant with me. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator has risen on a point of order. I shall hear the point of order. Senator Georges —My point of order is that, by endeavouring to table a document or by referring to it, the honourable senator gives that document a privilege which will enable other newspapers to pick up the document, which is clearly defamatory, and use the privilege of Parliament to protect themselves against any action. I do not know whether the honourable senator is aware of what he is doing. I am trying to protect him and prevent him from doing something that I hope he does not intend doing-that is, to give currency to a scurrilous article in the newspaper and use the Senate to do so. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. It is a point of explanation, but not a point of order. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the honourable senator for explaining the consequences of the article being tabled. I have no knowledge of whether the matters in the article are correct. That is one reason why I did not want to be obliged to state them. By stating them, I would incorporate them in Hansard. Senator Georges —By tabling the article, you are making it a public document. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —If anyone wants to reprint the article, I imagine that the absence of any writ at this stage, after four or five days, from the Treasurer would carry some suggestion-- Senator Georges —Not at all. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The honourable senator has used the word `scurrilous'. I have no idea whether the article is scurrilous. Senator Georges —Well, you should not use it. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask that interjections cease. I ask Senator Michael Baume to address his remarks to the Chair. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Thank you, Mr President. On Wednesday at the National Press Club, Mr Ross Dunn from the Sydney Morning Herald asked the Treasurer this question: I refer to the recent article in the `National Times' concerning your relationship with Warren Anderson. Can I ask you when did you become aware that Mr Anderson was under investigation by the Tax Office, and is it proper for the Treasurer to continue to have a relationship with a person under investigation for tax matters until that investigation is resolved. Mr Keating replied: Yes well you see I thought the `Sydney Morning Herald' could grasp the sense of occasion about the national economy and the Budget. But apparently this seems to be a disease of the Fairfax organisation. I should mention that the National Times on Sunday is a Fairfax publication. He went on: And I only make the obvious point that I'm not privy to any taxpayer's affairs-that's a matter for the Tax Commissioner. And therefore I think the implication in your question which probably is by implication a slight upon the taxpayer you mentioned whose tax affairs I am totally unaware of. I understand that to be the transcript, although it does not necessarily make sense. I raise that question. I raise also a question by Mr Peter Reith in the other place in which he said: I refer the Treasurer to an article in last Sunday's National Times on Sunday in which it is suggested that he sold antique clocks at inflated prices to his friend, the property developer, Mr Warren Anderson, thereby deriving an improper personal benefit. In view of the high responsibilities of his office and the need for total confidence in his integrity, what steps does the Treasurer intend to take to answer these and other allegations contained in the article? I was obliged to read that question because the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) asked me what allegations were made in the article. Having been obliged to do so, I now say that it seems at least that the Treasurer-by the way, his reply was of no consequence to the substance of the question-should either reject outright the matters raised in the article, which he has so far failed to do- Senator Georges —Or be found guilty. Is that what you are saying? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —No, I am not suggesting that he should be found guilty by this or any other place. Senator Georges —That is what you are saying, if he does not answer. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am suggesting that the Treasurer has a duty either to concede, if some things are true, that there is some truth in them, or to deny them, if there is no truth in them. To leave these substantial allegations unanswered and uncommented on is quite unsatisfactory. For the benefit of Senator Grimes, one of the other allegations related to the Treasurer's providing a reference for Mr Warren Anderson, who was found guilty in a court case of importing a loaded revolver into Australia, which clearly breached the licence conditions attached to that revolver. As I said, these are matters of great substance and of great seriousness, or at least they appear to be. If in fact the suggestions, statements, innuendos or whatever they are in this article are not correct, surely the Treasurer has a duty to the people of Australia, apart from us in this place, to establish that his credibility cannot be questioned. For example, the Budget just brought down rests very heavily on the credibility of the figures contained in it and on the man who presented it. Australia's status internationally depends very heavily on the credibility of the Treasurer. I am certainly not damaging his credibility because any damage which has been done to it has been done by those people who have read this article and who believe its contents, none of which so far have been repudiated by the Treasurer. On the occasions when the Treasurer has had the opportunity to repudiate elements of it, he has decided against doing so. That is his decision. All I am saying is that it is a matter of concern to me, having been subjected to the sort of criticism which has been unsubstantiated but perpetual in this chamber and having responded to it. I respond to it by providing the facts and by reading segments of reports that magically manage to evade the eyes of those people who choose to attack me improperly, unfairly and scurrilously in this chamber. I am prepared to respond because I have nothing to hide. I have a report by the government inspector-- Senator Georges —The person you are talking about has nothing to hide. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am glad that I have the support of Senator Georges because if the person involved has nothing to hide he should not damage his standing, particularly his standing as Treasurer and as a result indirectly, I submit, the standing of Australia because of the very significant position he occupies, by failing to deal with these very serious allegations. It would be simple to deny some of these things if in fact they are not so. For example, there was a suggestion-we will call it an allegation to suit Senator Grimes-that the Treasurer and another person borrowed more money from the Local Government Superannuation Board than the value of the property involved and that some of his mates-I do not know whether they were little or big mates-from his time in the Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union and the right wing of the Labor Party in New South Wales were on the board of that group. If those things are not correct, for heaven's sake should not the Treasurer say so? To leave them unanswered and up in the air seems to me to be extraordinary. There is also a suggestion that the Treasurer has not lived in what was described in the last travel allowance list as his home base. For some extraordinary reason that list came out 17 months ago. I do not know why the TA list is so obviously late. I do not know what the Government has to hide by not providing the TA list of what people list as their home base, but in the last list, which came out in March 1985, the Treasurer gave Elizabeth Bay as his home base. In fact, that is listed as his home in the statement of interest for all members of the House of Representatives that came out during the week. As I understand it, interviews in the past have suggested and statements in the newspapers have said that the Treasurer lives in Canberra with his family because his duties keep him in Canberra so much. There may be a simple and proper explanation, but this newspaper suggests that there is an improper one. Would it not be a good idea, if there is a simple and proper explanation outlining why the Treasurer's last statement gave Sydney as his home base, and as the Government has not brought out a travel allowance statement for 17 months, for him to say whether it is still his home base? I stress to the Senate that I have no knowledge of whether these allegations are correct. I have no desire to give them some special status, as Senator Georges is suggesting I am. What I am saying is that there is a duty on the Treasurer to answer these very serious allegations. Until they are answered, there is serious doubt. For example, this question of taking profits on the sale of clocks, which is alleged in this publication, I suppose can be related to an interview that the Treasurer had with the ABC program Four Corners on 18 August in which he said that back in the 1970s when he first started collecting these clocks they were really around for nothing and that buying them did not involve much money. He said that they have massively appreciated. It is interesting in the terms of the new tax arrangements that they have massively appreciated, because they are excluded- Senator Messner —When did he sell them? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is out of his place and is not entitled to interject. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I do not know whether the interjection is also out of place, but I do not know when he sold them. I have no idea. I do not know how accurate the allegations are; all I know is that they have been made and that they have been a matter of public discussion. He was interviewed on the ABC program Four Corners and was asked about taking profits and so on. Obviously, intention, when buying an item, is of some moment when clearly there is an indication that significant profits can be taken on the sale of an asset which has appreciated. That simply may well show the good taste and good sense of the Treasurer and also his knowledge of the tax laws, but the reality is that there are allegations in this document relating to the sale of these clocks to Mr Warren Anderson. As I say, I have no idea. All I want to know, and I think the Australian people have a right to know, is whether these allegations can be rejected out of hand by the Treasurer, as I believe they should be if they can be, or whether there is some substance to them. Even if some of the facts are right, the inference or gloss put upon them by this kind of headline or story may be totally wrong. If that is so, surely we could expect a man in such a significant position to deal with that sort of matter. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) was obliged to stand down for some period. He was in serious trouble over a Paddington Bear, for heaven's sake, so does not that kind of experience and the sort of standard that obviously people expect of their parliamentarians require some kind of response in this case? I simply say to Senator Georges that his actions force me to retail some of the allegations. I had intended to refer the Senate to the article without retailing it. As I started off saying, I had no intention of retailing them-- Senator Georges —You did not really. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Indeed, and Senator Georges can take the credit for my being obliged to make the point I am making, for forcing me to retail some of the matters, the merit of which I have no idea whatsoever. Given that situation I believe the Treasurer has a duty to us to respond. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.50) —Since Senator Michael Baume has taken me to task I will have to respond. I thought I was giving him good advice on the matter of tabling documents, because he may have misused the processes of the Senate. But as he spoke it became fairly obvious that he was going to disclose the contents of that article because his purpose was maliciously to attack the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and to put on the record, under privilege, some allegations that have been made which, if they had been made about you, you would not have dignified them with a reply. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest to Senator Georges that he address his remarks through the Chair and not direct to Senator Michael Baume. Senator GEORGES —I am only looking at him. The PRESIDENT —You are also speaking to him. Senator GEORGES —I will look at you, Mr President, and speak to him. You have diverted me somewhat. I was about to say that the honourable senator himself has been subject to a number of attacks in this place over the years. I recall the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange inquiry. I recall certain allegations that were made about him, and I thought those allegations were unfair. Of course they were made under privilege and he had no means of responding. I would have thought that that experience would have led him to be much more cautious about what he does to others, but that is not the case. Let me go back and repeat some of the words I said previously. This chamber is not here for the purpose of using privilege in the manner in which it has just been used. It has the capacity to rebound. There are a couple of examples where a person who has used this place to attack others has suddenly found himself at the receiving end. It is not very edifying-- Senator Michael Baume —I have attacked nobody. Senator GEORGES —Well, you have just given us-- Senator Michael Baume —And Senator Grimes knows that. Senator GEORGES —The honourable senator has just given us a good example. All I am suggesting is that it was a very pathetic attempt to give further currency to some unfounded allegations against the Treasurer. I would say that the Treasurer has no responsibility in this matter and he ought not to answer. That is my view of it. When people make such unfounded allegations they ought not to be dignified by a reply. What the honourable senator has tried to do is to build a case against the Treasurer in a rather pathetic and undignified way. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.54) —On Monday I had a conversation with a very senior and very conservative journalist and commentator in this place. He asked me whether I had read the article to which Senator Michael Baume has referred in the National Times on Sunday, and I said I had. His view was, and it is my view, that that article is in fact a very lengthy dissertation on one Warren Anderson and the alleged association with the Treasurer (Mr Keating). But, as the journalist said, upon reading the article I found there were in fact no substantive allegations in it at all. It is a typical article by that newspaper which tries to play on the fact that the Treasurer was apparently a friend of Mr Anderson, and tries to make some references to the fact that the Treasurer has a clock collection and buys and sometimes sells clocks. It must be the most publicised clock collection in the whole country. There has never been any secret about it. The article claims that Mr Anderson is under investigation for tax, but does not say that the Treasurer has any association with that or anything to do with that, and it makes some claim that the Treasurer at some time or other made a reference for Mr Anderson. I think they were the things that Senator Michael Baume referred to tonight. But it was the judgment of this senior and, as I say, very politically conservative journalist, that that sort of article was typical of the sorts of articles that have been produced in this newspaper for some time. But when I read it there was plenty of innuendo and no substance at all. The Treasurer has apparently chosen not to respond to the article and, as Senator Georges said, I do not blame him. Plenty of newspapers write articles such as this. They even write worse articles than this. In fact people on both sides of this place have had scurrilous things written about them in a well known Melbourne newspaper, but I do not think anyone has ever responded to them, nor should they. In fact I know that no one in my time in here has ever raised any of those articles in this place about anybody else and nor should they. I will refer the matters that Senator Baume has raised to the Treasurer. I cannot guarantee him an answer. Let me just say something else. I believe there is all the difference in the world in standing up in here and producing articles such as this and making speeches of this type, and even attempting in a feeble way to blame Senator Georges and, I suppose, me for refusing leave to table the document. There is a custom in this place that before leave is sought an honourable senator at least asks the relevant Minister in the place if it is okay to table it. That was not done. Maybe Senator Michael Baume does not know the customs in this place. He has not been here long and he does not know the customs. I suggest to him that there is all the difference in that and the sort of argy-bargy that goes on in this place both from me and from him in the heat of the moment and by interjection. I defy Senator Baume ever to find a time when I have made the sorts of accusations which I am never proud of in this place, other than in response to a remark by him, usually about someone in this place. I remember one beautiful Thursday when the honourable senator got up and made a scurrilous attack on the previous Australian Labor Party speaker here. Senator Michael Baume —I accused him of reading his speech. How scurrilous! Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator said more than that. Senator Michael Baume —I said he was reading his speech and no more than that. That is an absolute lie. That is a lie. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will withdraw that remark. Senator GRIMES —I am not worried about asking for withdrawals. Senator Michael Baume —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator GRIMES —I never ask for withdrawals either; I just think it is nonsense. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is not the Minister's place to ask for a withdrawal. The Chair is directing a withdrawal. Senator GRIMES —Okay. There are always times in this place when people say vigorous things and I am one of those who do it. Make no bones about it, I will respond in kind at any time. But there is all the difference in the world in that sort of behaviour-in getting up here and producing a document of that type and trying to blame the Government for the fact that the honourable senator had to read what he claims are allegations in it and making a smear attack on the Treasurer. If that is the way he wants to do things, I do not mind-I think there is all the difference in the world in getting up here and cold bloodedly making a speech and accusations of impropriety against someone on the other side, and the sorts of things that are sometimes shouted across this place. Of course we all say things in here in interjection in the heat of the moment that we regret. I have regretted it many times but I have always said that I will do it only in response to something that comes from the other side, and that is true. The honourable senator can check the Hansard. It is true every time. But I do not get up here and produce documents from the National Times on Sunday, the Toorak Times, the Truth or any of those newspapers. Senator Walters —You just tell lies. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters says that that is lies. She cannot cite one example of when I have got up here and read something from a scurrilous document of that type. Sometimes in interjection across this place some of the things I have said of course have not been true. But I have not gone out in the streets of Hobart and told lies about me in the way that Senator Walters has done. Senior members of the medical profession in Hobart have told me about the scurrilous nonsense she has said about me. I have not asked her for an apology because they do not take her seriously as they know what she is like. So let us have our interjections and vigorous debates, but let us not come in here with the Toorak Times, the National Times on Sunday or the Truth and repeat the sort of stuff that is written in them and say that it is up to every senator or member of this Parliament who has this sort of thing written about him or her to get up and reply to it. If we do that, we help the people who write this sort of stuff and we increase the circulation of the Toorak Times, the Melbourne Truth and the National Times on Sunday. What sort of behaviour will there be in this place if every time someone has something of that type written about him or her, he or she has to get up here and explain it? I think it is significant that that article came out last Sunday and I think we should look at the names of the people who chose to bring up those articles in this place. They will be judged by their peers and everybody else. As I say, I will refer the matter to the Treasurer, but I cannot guarantee a reply. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes, in his usual fashion, has stood up here tonight and told the untruths that he admits he does in this place. I do not believe that that is an excuse for standing up here and repeating untruths. I do not tell untruths in this place and for him to stand here tonight and admit that he does, then to continue on, is quite unforgivable and is no excuse, whether it is in the heat of the moment or otherwise, and he should pull himself together. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation, Mr President. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I said tonight that I had had reported to me by people in Hobart that Senator Walters had had certain things said about me. I once confronted Senator Walters with such an accusation and her response was that the person who had allegedly said it, for some reason or other, was not responsible for what she said. I have since found that that is not true. Senator Walters can go on with this nonsense as long as she likes, but there are people who have heard what she has said and have retailed what she has said to me and to others. Maybe she does not know what she says sometimes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation, Mr President. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes is not telling the truth. He is incapable of telling the truth in this place or in any other place. What he said to me and what I said to him was that what he had been told was not true. The person who he said had relayed the untruth to him was not capable-I agree with him that that is what I said-and it was recognised that that person was not capable. Senator Grimes throws his hands in the air, but he has said in this place tonight-I am very pleased to have it in Hansard-that he does stand up and tell untruths in the heat of the moment. Senator Grimes —No, I didn't say that. Senator WALTERS —That is exactly what Senator Grimes said and he will not change it in Hansard, because that is indeed what he said. It is quite accurate; for once, it is quite accurate. He does stand up here and tell untruths. According to him, it is in the heat of the moment. But I do not believe that. It is all planned. Senator Grimes really is quite irresponsible in this place, completely irresponsible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.05 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence and a Statement relating to extension of specified period for presentation of the Australian National University Annual Report 1985 (Part II). Australian National University Act-Statutes- No. 186-Superannuation Funds (Investment and Management) No. 187-Parking and Traffic Amendment No. 2 No. 188-Statute Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1018) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 11 April 1986: (1) What is the policy of the Australian National Gallery in regard to- (a) touring exhibitions; and (b) loans to State and regional galleries. (2) How many touring exhibitions were organised for 1985 and 1986. (3) What special touring exhibition plans are in place in readiness for 1988. (4) What financial provision is being developed for this commitment. (5) What is the budget allocation for touring exhibitions in the current financial year. (6) How many works are on loan throughout Australia. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) Australian National Gallery policy is to organise and manage touring exhibitions giving preference to localities not well served by major collections and varied exhibition programs. In general these exhibitions consist of less fragile works of art. (b) The Gallery has a policy of lending to art museums and other institutions (including State and regional galleries) for exhibitions when it is considered that such loans would make a contribution to art and historical knowledge. Loans are not normally approved for works likely to deteriorate through travel. (2) Two travelling exhibitions were organised for 1985 and three travelling exhibitions were organised for 1986. (3) The National Gallery will lend extensively to the touring exhibitions planned by the Australian Bicentennial Authority. (4) The Authority will meet the costs of touring exhibitions for the Bicentenary. (5) $37,000. (6) The Gallery has more than 500 works of art on loan throughout Australia at any one time. (Question No. 1041) Senator Siddons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 30 April 1986: How does the Government, in view of its stated aim of developing Australian industry and reducing our balance of payments deficit which will be at record levels this year, probably about $13 billion, explain the fact that the carpet in the new Parliament House will be made totally from New Zealand wool, despite the fact that Australia produces carpet wool of as high a standard as any in the world. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The carpets for the new Parliament House will not be made totally from New Zealand wool. Carpets of 100% Australian wool will be featured in the Cabinet Suites and the Main Committee Room. As a Commonwealth agency the Parliament House Construction Authority (PHCA) is required to apply the provisions of the Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement with New Zealand in calling tenders for work on the new Parliament House. This requires that New Zealand products be treated as if they were Australian. In the case of carpets for the new building four tender packages were called on the basis of specifications developed by the Parliament in consultation with the Australian Wool Corporation. Tenderers were asked to indicate the source of the wool content of their tenders. There was no restriction on Australian carpet wool being tendered. Following the evaluation of tenders it became apparent that the application of the tender procedures would result in no Australian carpet wool being used in the building. The Authority advised the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House of this situation and indicated that one or two areas of the building could be exempted from the general tender provisions. The Committee subsequently decided to ask PHCA to negotiate with the relevant contractor so that the Cabinet Suite and Main Committee Room would have carpets of 100% Australian wool. Both areas are significant spaces in the building. (Question No. 1067) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) Are the fortunes of some Australian farmers being adversely affected by the tactics of certain Australian banks. (2) Are certain banks adding an extra margin for risks to farm interest rates; if so, which banks have been identified by the Federal Government in this regard. (3) Are certain banks failing to pass on the benefits of falling interest rates to the agricultural community; if so, which banks have been identified in this regard. (4) Are certain banks attempting to recoup money by prematurely foreclosing on farmers; if so, which banks have been identified in this regard. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The major Australian banks provide the majority of finance to the rural sector. I understand that rural finance forms about 10% of their business and the banks have assured me on a number of occasions that they are committed to supporting the sector. The level of lending and the interest rates charged by banks are matters for their own commercial judgment, having regard to the risk involved with each customer and proposal. As part of these normal commercial practices, banks set interest rates in light of the security offered, the commercial prospects of a proposal and the business standing of the borrower. For example, the prime or reference interest rate on overdrafts is the rate charged to corporate clients of the highest standing. Interest rates for other customers are usually set slightly above this reflecting higher risks which may be associated with various lending proposals. An issue which your question raises is whether farmers are being charged margins for risk which might be considered excessive. I am advised, in this regard, that there is no difference in the setting of interest rates to farmers and other business borrowers with similar prospects. I would also note that, as a result of the deregulation of the financial system, banks and other financial institutions are offering a greater range of financial packages to the borrowers. This development means that farmers are now better placed to obtain financial facilities suited to their individual circumstances and needs. (3) I am advised that the main consideration by the banks in setting interest rates is the market cost of funds. Depending on the mix of borrowing facilities, the cost of funds between individual banks can vary from time to time leading to variations in interest rates on offer by different institutions. (4) I have been assured on a number of occasions that the banks consider the best way to maintain their investment in rural Australia is to maintain farmers on the land. Only as a last resort will banks foreclose. I am informed that while procedures may vary from bank to bank such decisions are made only after the alternatives have been fully considered by senior bank management. The number of foreclosures which have occured have been miniscule when compared with the number of Australian farmers. (Question No. 1202) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: (1) Is the Crown of Thorns starfish in plague proportions on the Great Barrier Reef. (2) Are Cod and Parrot fish the only 2 predators of the starfish and are they in low numbers because of fishing. (3) What action is being taken by the Commonwealth Government to protect the Reef. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The crown of thorns starfish currently infests about 2% of reefs on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), according to a survey of 220 reefs conducted by the Australian Institute of Marine Science in 1985. (An `infestation' or aggregation of starfish is defined as more than 40 starfish seen in a dive.) In the 1985 survey no infestations were found in the Far Northern Section of the GBR (41 reefs surveyed), Cairns and Cormorant Pass Sections (64 reefs surveyed), and Southern Section (64 reefs surveyed). In the Central Section off Townsville, 7% of reefs surveyed had infestations. This represents a significant decrease from the apparent extreme period between 1982-1984 when about 34% of the Central Section reefs were infested. During that period the overall infestation rate in the Great Barrier Reef region was about 16%. (2) There has never been any scientific record of either cod (grouper) or parrot fish preying on crown of thorns starfish. (There is an unverified report of crown of thorns remains being found in a cod, but they are considered highly unlikely predators of starfish.) The only fish ever reported eating adult crown of thorns are a species of pufferfish and two species of triggerfish. None of these fish are normally caught by fishermen. Parrotfish, abundant on all reefs, are also not normally caught by fishermen. The tusk fish (wrasses) are sometimes mistakenly referred to as parrotfish and are commonly caught and eaten. However they are not known to prey on crown of thorns starfish. Several shrimps and the giant triton shell are also confirmed predators of the crown of thorns starfish. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is currently funding studies on the predators of this starfish. (3) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), which was established under the GBRMP Act 1975 for the protection of the GBR, has been centrally involved in the crown of thorns starfish issue. The Authority has funded research on the starfish since its reappearance on the Reef in 1979 and has monitored its spread using visitors' reports. The comprehensive database obtained from these reports was expanded substantially in 1985 by a survey conducted by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. In 1984 GBRMPA convened an expert committee, the Crown of Thorns Starfish Advisory Committee to review the situation. As a result of this Committee's recommendations, the Government granted GBRMPA $971,000 in 1985-86 for the first year of an intensive four year research program. The Authority has mounted a comprehensive research program involving more than fifty of Australia's senior research scientists in what is probably the most concerted, coordinated research on a single problem ever to have been undertaken in Australia's seas. Although removal of the starfish from the GBR is obviously impossible (one heavily infested reef may have several million starfish) the Authority has conducted localized controls and assisted tourist operators in several other controls. It has recently conducted a trial program on an infested reef off Townsville using Royal Australian Navy divers to determine if localized areas can be kept free of the starfish.