Friday, 10 October 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 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: We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1.-its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2.-its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3.-its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4.-in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 264 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 443 citizens) and Gietzelt (from 455 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens shows that the citizens of the Northern Territory- recognize- (i) that nuclear peace for the world will come through adequate, supervised disarmament of nuclear weapons; (ii) that arms limitation arrangements between the United States and the Soviet Union specifically provide for verification, and the general purpose of the facilities at Pine Gap contribute to this objective; (iii) among the functions performed are the provision of early warning by receiving from space satellites information about missile launches and the provision of information about the occurrences of nuclear explosions which assist in nuclear test ban monitoring, supports nuclear non-proliferation measures and contributes to global stability- and urge the Australian Government to give an unequivocal commitment to renew the lease on the joint de-fence facility for a further term of ten years when the present lease expires on 19 October 1987. by Senator Kilgariff (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this and any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual Restrict Rights to those specified by the Bill We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject a Bill of Rights in this or any other form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 32 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 Boswell (from 134 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will reject the proposed Bill of Rights as Australian's rights are already protected by the traditional system of common law and urge that any proposal for a Bill of Rights should be put to the Australian people through a referendum. by Senator Boswell (from 41 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 Senator Zakharov (from 128 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long-term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Senator Short (from 218 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we object to the ill conceived relocation by Australia Post of our District Mail Service (MS282) to originate from Lowood from 1.7.86-the service previously originating satisfactorily from Coominya Post Office for many years. The grounds for objection being: 1. Properties and households that have been serviced by and from Coominya Post Office since selection have their community interests centred in Coominya. 2. Mail delivery times have been altered to an inconvenient and unreliable time table for residents of Coominya and District. 3. The expense by farmers, business, and individuals in notifying change of address, altering stencils, stationery, rubber stamps etc. 4. All community members who were eligible for discount ``local rate'' postage now have to pay full rate on all Mail Service mail for Coominya District posted at Coominya Post Office, because delivery is not longer ``local''. 5. Mail Contract conditions dictate that outward mail can no longer be forwarded via the Mail Contractors through Coominya Post Office. 6. Australia Post is forcefully downgrading Coominya Post Office by directing mail and business through Lowood Post Office even though official staff at Lowood cannot render the same satisfactory service as participating members of this community-Coominya Postal Staff. We further object to the blatant disregard shown by Australia Post to our community in not advising the residents prior to the change. Your petitioners therefore request that Australia Post be instructed to relocate the Mail Service(s) for Coominya District, to originate from Coominya Post Office forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 601 citizens). Petitions received. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Government Business, Notice of Motion No. 1, be postponed until 20 November 1986. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Air Navigation Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 141 and made under the Air Navigation Act 1920, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Air Navigation (Charges) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 169 and made under the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Departure Tax Collection Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 170 and made under the Departure Tax Collection Act 1978, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Navigation Orders as contained in Navigation (Orders) Regulations Orders Nos 5 to 11 inclusive of 1986, made under the Navigation (Orders) Regulations and made under the Navigation Act 1912, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Postal By-Laws Amendment No. 2 of 1986 made on 17 July 1986 under the Postal Services Act 1975, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Futures Industry Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 150 and made under the Futures Industry Act 1986, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-I have given a number of notices of motion of disallowance. They are all what the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances describes as protective notices either to allow Ministers with whom the Committee is corresponding to reply to letters, or to enable the Committee to negotiate further with Ministers. These notices relate to questions of review of discretionary decisions, strict liability offences, the effect on an instrument on the non-tabling of an earlier instrument and issues concerning the powers of officials to enter private premises. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the unemployment rate in Queensland non-metropolitan areas was: (i) in December 1984, 10.1 per cent, (ii) in January 1985, 12.3 per cent and December 1985, 10.1 per cent, (iii) in January 1986, 10.4 per cent and July 1986, 10.4 per cent, and (iv) in July 1986, non-metropolitan unemployment rate of 10.4 per cent, when Australia's unemployment rate stood at 7.9 per cent; (b) notes that the Queensland non-metropolitan unemployment rate has been above the Australian jobless rate in every month from and including February 1984 to July 1986 (30 consecutive months); and (c) condemns the National Party Government for its neglect of country areas. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes amendments of a safeguarding nature that are made necessary by a decision of the Full Court of the Queensland Supreme Court in an action by a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to recover an unpaid taxation debt. The Court, by majority, held that the time limits specified in the Queensland Limitation of Actions Act 1974 for the commencement of proceedings to recover a debt applied, by virtue of section 64 of the Commonwealth Judiciary Act 1903, to proceedings to recover taxation debts to the Commonwealth. The decision, contrary to decisions previously taken by supreme courts in Western Australia and New South Wales, is contrary to the long held view that taxation debts could, by virtue of the crown prerogative, be recovered at any time. The Commissioner of Taxation has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court. The effect of the Queensland decision unless reversed by the High Court is that, in that State, the commencement of an action for the recovery of tax is subject to a six-year limitation period and the commencement of an action to recover additional tax for late payment is subject to a two-year limitation period. Mr President, this decision has extremely serious revenue implications both for this year's Budget and for future Budgets. Unless prompt legislative action is taken, the recovery of many millions of dollars of outstanding tax, mainly from tax avoiders, will at best be delayed for several months and, at worst, prevented altogether. If the rationale for the decision were to apply Australia-wide, revenue of the order of $200m would be placed in jeopardy in 1986-87. A further $700m would be at risk in later years. This particular revenue loss simply cannot be countenanced. Not to act without delay to protect the revenue would be irresponsible. The vast majority of the $900m is owed by tax avoidance participants of the 1970s and early 1980s. Over the past 5 to 10 years, they have resorted to every means available to frustrate the considerable efforts of the Commissioner of Taxation to resolve disputes as to liability and to secure the payment of outstanding tax and penalties. To delay the action now proposed would reward these tax avoiders for the frustration they have caused and would be completely out of step with this Government's commitment to ensure that such people do not escape their financial obligations to all Australians. The amendment proposed by this Bill is a fair and sensible one. It will mean that, where liability for a taxation debt is, or has been, disputed, the period during which an action for the recovery of the debt may be commenced will correspondingly be extended by the time taken to resolve the dispute. In a case where there is no dispute, the time limits specified in any applicable State or Territory limitation law will apply according to that law. The proposed amendment will, however, apply only if State or Territory limitation laws are ultimately held by the High Court to apply to the recovery of Commonwealth taxation debts. A further measure contained in the Bill will treat penalty taxes for late lodgment of tax returns, making of false or misleading statements or participation in tax avoidance schemes as ordinary debts for limitation law purposes. This will mean that these penalty taxes will be subject to the generally longer limitation period that applies to the recovery of ordinary debts, rather than the shorter period that applies to the recovery of penalties. The amendments will apply to actions for the recovery of taxation debts whether incurred before or after the Bill becomes law. In this respect the Bill is if the Queensland Supreme Court is correct in its decision, technically retrospective in application. But-and I emphasise this-it does not retrospectively impose any new or increased tax liability or make unlawful any conduct. The Bill does no more than any responsible government, faced with a revenue loss of $900m, would be compelled to do in the face of a decision such as that taken by the Queensland Supreme Court. The proposed amendments will not, however, apply to proceedings for the recovery of a tax debt where a court has, on or before today, given a decision in such proceedings based on the application of a limitation law. In other words, it will not apply to several cases recently decided by the Queensland Supreme Court, nor to one case presently subject to an appeal by the taxpayer to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Mr President, an explanatory memorandum which gives more details of the measures contained in the Bill is being circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Reid for this day, for the disallowance of Part VII of the Children's Services Ordinance 1986, be postponed till three sitting days hence. Consideration resumed from 9 October. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY BILL 1986 The Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.09) —Briefly, we persist in our opposition to the amendments moved by Senator Durack. We think it is more desirable to have some check on the operations of our security services insofar as they affect the violation of human rights. We believe that the solution that we have come up with is the most satisfactory one and hence we oppose the amendments. Amendments negatived. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.10) —I move: (4) Page 5, sub-clause 8 (1), leave out paragraph (d). This amendment leaves out the last of the Inspector-General's functions as stated in clause 8 (1) of the Bill. Paragraph (d) reads: where the responsible Minister has given a direction to ASIO on the question whether- (i) the collection of intelligence concerning a particular individual is, or is not, justified by reason of its relevance to security; or (ii) the communication of intelligence concerning a particular individual would be for a purpose relevant to security, to inquire into whether that collection is justified on that ground or whether that communication would be for that purpose . . . Admittedly this is a rather unsatisfactory way of dealing with this issue, because the substantive provisions concerning the powers of the Minister to give these directions are contained in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisations Amendment Bill. In order to deal with them under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill I will have to refer to the ASIO Bill. It might cut matters short if we debate this amendment in that way. The CHAIRMAN —There is no problem with that at all. You can refer to the other Bill if it is necessary to explain this amendment. Senator DURACK —One of the major amendments to the ASIO legislation is contained in the amendments to section 8 of the existing Act, which appear in clause 5 of the ASIO Amendment Bill. Clause 5 lays out a new code for the relationship between the Minister and ASIO which is significantly different from that which appears in the 1979 legislation. In that legislation, section 8 provides that the Organisation should be under the control of the Director-General. It is not proposed to amend that provision. The section goes on to state that the Director-General is subject to the general directions of the Minister but that the Minister is not empowered to override the opinion of the Director-General on the question of the collection of intelligence concerning a particular individual or on the question of a communication of intelligence about a particular individual. The Government's changes to the ASIO Act, which follow consequentially in the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill, specifically propose that the Director-General be subject to the directions of the Minister and not just to general directions. The Director-General can request the Minister to put those directions in writing. The provision goes on to say that the Minister is not empowered to override the opinion of the Director-General concerning the nature of the advice that should be given. That follows the existing legislation and we have no problem with that. The main problem is sub-clause (5), which states that the Minister is not empowered to override the opinion of the Director-General on the question of collecting intelligence about individuals or communicating that intelligence except by a direction contained in an instrument in writing that sets out the Minister's reasons for overriding the opinion. Sub-clause (6) states: The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after giving a direction in writing to the Director-General, cause a copy of the direction to be given to the Inspector-General . . . A copy is also to be forwarded to the Prime Minister, in certain circumstances. Subsequently the Bill gives the Inspector-General the function of considering the propriety of a Minister's direction to collect intelligence about a particular individual or to communicate that intelligence. There is also in clause 35 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill a provision for the Inspector-General in his annual report to report on that matter to the Prime Minister. The approach in this new code is completely different from that adopted in the Act. This is one of our main objections to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill, against which we voted on second reading. We maintain our objection to this legislation because of this change in the relationship between the Minister and the Organization. This is a difficult matter and deals with the sensitive issues. The existing provision was designed to preserve human rights and civil liberties, about which we have heard so much from the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) and from the Australian Democrats. But instead of waffle, generalisations and trigger words relating to human rights, the principal Act contains a specific way of protecting individual and human rights. It seeks to prevent the abuse of power by a Minister, Prime Minister or a government in seeking to use the security services for political ends. If this amending legislation is passed, they can do just that, whereas the existing provisions provide a shield for the Director-General and his Organisation to refuse to comply with a ministerial direction to investigate a particular individual or, more seriously, that it should give the Minister concerned information on a particular individual. This is probably the most dangerous area of abuse of the security system by a government and should not be allowed, and it is covered in section 8 of the Act. But the proposals in this legislation will completely change that provision and, in a dressed-up way, are designed to obscure the reality of the fact that a new, dangerous power is being given to the Minister to use the Organisation for political purposes. Clearly, there are temptations for governments to use and misuse the sort of information obtained by security services in the proper course of their work; they may well obtain information that is politically sensitive. If a Minister can misuse the Organisation for political purposes, as he is virtually invited to do by this amending legislation, we are concerned that he may do so. There is an extraordinary contradiction in the approach to this legislation. We have all sorts of new proposals based presumably on the fact that we cannot really trust Ministers to exercise their responsibility. We have to set up a parliamentary committee and we have to appoint an Inspector-General because ministerial control presumably, in the eyes of the Government, is inadequate. At the same time as the Government is doing that, it is proposing to give a great new and highly dangerous instrument of ministerial abuse of the organisation for political purposes. No doubt we will hear the Minister say: `But that cannot be abused because the Inspector-General will look at this proposal, he will report to the Prime Minister about it, and the Prime Minister may tell the Parliament about it'. How utterly naive that proposal is. The Inspector-General has no power to stop this abuse. If the Government were really dinkum about this it would give the Inspector-General the power. A Minister or a Prime Minister-let us not put any greater faith necessarily in the Prime Minister than in the Attorney-General-could be intent upon abusing this power. If the Government were really serious about this, it would give the Inspector-General the right to stop that abuse effectively by restraining them from abusing that power in a direct way, such as the right to proceed to a court. But no, the Government has not done that. The Inspector-General can simply tell the Prime Minister that he thinks something is an abuse of power. What a joke that is. The probability is that, if the Attorney-General were trying to get information on somebody, the Prime Minister would be up to his neck in it as well. There would not be much assurance that the Prime Minister would do anything about it. The Government says: `But the Inspector-General has to put this in his report'. Whom does he report to? He reports to the Prime Minister. It could be said that clause 35 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill states that this report goes to Parliament. Clause 35 states in relation to presenting the report to Parliament: the Prime Minister may make such deletions from a report . . . as the Prime Minister considers necessary in order to avoid prejudice to security, the defence of Australia, Australia's relations with other countries or the privacy of individuals. So the Prime Minister could very neatly delete from his report to the Parliament what the Inspector-General may have said about something with which the Prime Minister disagrees, if he and the Attorney-General were trying to get information for political purposes. We simply cannot have it both ways. If we do not trust the system of ministerial responsibility in relation to these security services we should not be giving, as this provision does, power to the Minister and to the Prime Minister to abuse utterly individuals' civil and human rights by collecting information and using it for political purposes. That is the basis of this amendment. It is the basis of a range of amendments to two of the Bills. If we are to take this amendment as the test of whether we believe that scheme should be introduced, I hope that the Committee rejects these proposals. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.25) —On behalf of the Government I reject the Opposition's amendment. I also reject strongly some of the assertions that have been made. As I have pointed out before, Opposition members gave considerable weight during the second reading debate to the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, but once they got to the substance of the debate there were two areas in which they disregarded the recommendations and advice of Mr Justice Hope. These areas are the appointment of the Inspector-General and increased ministerial control. We now find that Government members are turning to Mr Justice Hope for support. It is not the Government that is having things both ways, but the Opposition. Opposition members want to use Mr Justice Hope's report in a general way, then selectively they want to disregard what he has to say. If, as Senator Durack says, the Government is being naive in this area then Mr Justice Hope is also being naive in this area. It is unfortunate that the shadow Attorney-General should accuse the Government of having base motives in this debate. I do not intend to raise the emotional level or the heat of the debate, but I think it is unfortunate that that should have happened. We are all aware that we have a difficult job in providing a balance between the proper political control and direction of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, which Senator Macklin talked about, and avoiding undue interference which could lead to the very bad situation, mentioned by Senator Durack, in which ASIO becomes a tool of the Government or, even worse, of the Minister, as has happened in some countries. On page 314 of his report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Mr Justice Hope says in paragraph 16.32: . . . there is considerable validity in the submission that the responsibility of the Minister to the Parliament justifies him in having a concern about these matters-- that is, the direction in which ASIO is going. He goes on: To prevent him altogether from overriding the opinion of the Director-General derogates from the Minister's ability fully to be responsible. The Minister must have the capacity to be responsible, responsible to the Parliament and the people of this country. Mr Justice Hope goes on: Likewise, although his responsibility would usually be satisfied by giving general rather than particular directions, the Minister's inability to give a particular direction may also impose an inappropriate limitation on his ability to carry out his responsibility. He goes on to give illustrations and then on page 319 he makes the recommendations that led to this section of the legislation. In our view, the Attorney-General should be able to override the Director-General, but not without some protection against the interference that Senator Durack has rightly said occurs in some countries. We need to ensure that the Attorney-General has someone keeping an eye on him and on his activities in this area. Hence, in line with Mr Hope's recommendations, we have provided in this legislation greater ministerial control than before, but also greater ministerial responsibility and accountability. In the performance of his functions under the Act, the Director-General is subject to the directions of the Minister, rather than general directions which is the way the existing legislation goes. However, the Minister cannot override the opinion of the Director-General on the question of whether the collection or communication of intelligence concerning a particular individual would be connected with security. If he does so, if he makes directions, he must do so in writing and those directions must go to the Prime Minister and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. An edited copy of the Inspector-General's report also goes each year to the Leader of the Opposition under clause 35 (3) of the legislation. Thus we have a whole series of checks and balances against the abuse of power by the Attorney-General. Whether Senator Durack likes it or not, we are a democracy and we are trying to retain that democracy. Parliament, Ministers and Prime Ministers have a responsibility. The piece of legislation in this clause takes into account the concerns of the community, and Mr Justice Hope, that this organisation, like any other organisation, should be seen to be responsible but at the same time not be shackled by such responsibility. The Government believes the legislation maintains the balance between proper political control and ensuring that there is no undue interference. For that reason the sorts of fearful consequences that Senator Durack implies could occur will not occur. They could occur only with the agreement of the Prime Minister, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Leader of the Opposition and the Director-General of ASIO. In those circumstances I think Senator Durack is drawing a very long bow in his concern about this legislation. We will persist in our opposition to his amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.31) —The Australian Democrats do not support the amendment moved by the Opposition. I think it is a pity that Senator Durack in his contribution on this clause decided to resort to some well-worn political tactics instead of addressing the basic legal and political issue involved in terms of directions of security services in a democratic society. It seems to us that the move made in this clause by the Government is appropriate. As the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has pointed out, if Senator Durack's scenario were to get off the ground it would need the connivance of a range of people in the security world as well as people in the political world. That would strain the intelligence and imagination of most people, but obviously not of Senator Durack. The proposition that we are looking at is in clause 5 (6) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill, which states: The Minister shall as soon as practicable after having given a direction in writing to the Director-General, cause a copy of the direction to be given to the Inspector-General of Security and, if the direction relates to a question referred to in sub-section (5) to the Prime Minister. It seems to me to be appropriate in a democratic society that those people who are responsible to the people for ordering the well-being of the country have control over such agencies and organisations operating on behalf of the country. Without that type of control I believe we would find ourselves in the types of situations that the United States of America has found itself in, with intelligence agencies out of control. The Soviet Union on occasions has found its intelligence agencies out of control. For some reason that entirely escapes me, it seems that bad will is always to be attributed to political leaders and good will always to be attributed to an agency of the government. That is an absurd proposition when put in that way. That seems to me to be the import of the contribution that Senator Durack made. Fairly obviously, there can be bad will in both areas and good will in both areas. What we are attempting to do is to get the right balance so that there are checks and balances. In terms of political theory, checks and balances should be established and developed within democratic societies so that absolute power does not reside in any particular spot and there are recourses. For example, the Prime Minister and Cabinet do not have untrammelled power; they are answerable to the Parliament. The Parliament does not have untrammelled power because the Executive is the executive of the day. Likewise, recourse extends through the courts, the judiciary and each element within our constitutional structure, which has been developed over hundreds of years and which gives those checks and balances. I believe this provision is a further development of that basic constitutional thrust. It is one which the Australian Democrats support and one which we believe the Opposition should also support. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.35) —I really do not need a sanctimonious lecture from Senator Macklin about the propriety of governments. Senator Macklin —It's about time you woke up to yourself. Senator DURACK —Senator Macklin knows nothing about the subject. He has just given us a quite unnecessary and offensive lecture. The fact is that he has revealed total double standards and those double standards are shared by the Government on this issue. The premise on which this whole seedy package of amendments is presented is that Ministers cannot be trusted. Senator Grimes is saying that they can be and that has been embellished by Senator Macklin saying that of course we can trust Ministers, and of course they will do the right thing. If it is the case that Ministers can be trusted-- Senator Macklin —Sit down; you are cluttering up the Senate. Senator DURACK —That advice is likely to encourage me to go on for a great length of time. Senator Macklin's yapping away will not assist the process of this debate. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Macklin will cease interjecting. Senator DURACK —I think that by and large it is appropriate to have confidence in Ministers exercising proper responsibility and control, answerable as they are in these matters, as well as anything else, to Parliament. We do not need to construct this whole new superstructure of control over Ministers. The whole object of this package is to create a new additional superstructure of control because the Minister or the Prime Minister cannot be trusted to carry out the job. At the same time as the Government is doing that, premised on that theory which I agree is purely theoretical, it is proposing to give this whole new power to Ministers to give directions to the organisation to spy-if one likes to use that word-on individuals and to report back to the Ministers on what is found out. This is a totally unnecessary power because we have a professional organisation. It is the main responsibility of the Government to see that it has a professional and effective organisation. Professional decisions have to be made as to whether certain individuals will be targeted and as to whether information received is considered to be relevant to security. That is the professional job of an effective security organisation. That organisation does not need the Minister to tell it what to do in the exercise of its professional responsibilities. There are people in that organisation who have that task. Governments have to rely on professional advice in a whole range of matters. Ministers will only put their fingers into these sorts of areas if they want political information or want to use or misuse the security service for political purposes. That is the basis of my argument and the basis of this amendment and it certainly has not been answered by the sanctimonious contribution we have had from Senator Macklin. Although I do not accuse the Minister of such an approach, I do not believe that the Government fully understands the nature of the implications of the amendment it has proposed. Senator Grimes has fallen back on the fact that it is a recommendation of Mr Justice Hope. He seems to believe that the Opposition's approach to this matter is contradictory because we are allegedly relying on Mr Justice Hope's rejection of the establishment of a parliamentary committee as our reason for opposing it. I have news for the Minister: We made up our minds about our attitude to the parliamentary committee without the assistance of Mr Justice Hope's advice. The Government cannot rely on that argument, because it is not following Mr Justice Hope's advice on that matter. It does not advance the argument in any way to say that everyone should be supporting this amendment because Mr Justice Hope advised it. If that is the case, the Government should not be proposing the establishment of the parliamentary committee. I just do not think it answers the argument one iota. We should be dealing with the substance of this amendment. That is what I have tried to address, and I have given the reasons why the Opposition is opposed to it. The Opposition's reasons are not based merely on a recommendation of Mr Justice Hope one way or the other. Mr Justice Hope has given a most valuable report. His reasoning is entitled to great respect, which we have given it, but we have made up our own minds as to where we stand in relation to this whole package. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.42) —Briefly, we persist in our opposition to the amendment. It seems to me that this debate will not get us very far. To plagiarise Sydney Smith, we are a bit like the neighbours shouting over the fence-we are arguing from different premises and we are not likely to come together. I make the point that I do not just rely on Mr Justice Hope's recommendations. This is an attempt to provide that balance between proper political direction and undue interference with the agencies. The aim is to ensure that the Minister can exercise his responsibility and be accountable. We believe that there are sufficient checks and balances in the legislation, and therefore we persist in our opposition to the amendment. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Powell, J. F. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sanders, N. K. Grimes, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Haines, J. Tate, M. C. Jones, G. N. Vigor, D. B. McClelland, Douglas Walsh, P. A. McIntosh, G. D. Zakharov, A. O. McKiernan, J. P. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. Hill, R. Colston, M. A. Jessop, D. S. Gietzelt, A. T. Walters, M. S. Button, J. N. Teague, B. C. Coleman, R. N. Baume, Peter Aulich, T. Chaney, F. M. Evans, Gareth Question so resolved in the negative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.48) —I move: (7) Page 18, after clause 36, add the following clause: `Termination of Act `37. This Act, unless sooner repealed, shall cease to be in force at the expiration of 3 years after the day referred to in section 2.'. This remaining amendment to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill 1986 proposes the insertion of a sunset clause. The period of three years was chosen because that is the term of office provided for in the Bill for the Inspector-General. We would not want to have a situation in which he would be cut off at the knees, so to speak. When he completes his first term of office is an appropriate time for the matter to be reviewed. Sunset clauses often operate for five years but three years was chosen so that, as I have said, the term of office would coincide with the term of office created for the Inspector-General. The Opposition has expressed a good deal of concern about the creation of this new office and the further controls that will be placed on it, thus adding to the reporting requirements and the answerability to further organisations of the Director-General and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. However we did not vote against the second reading of the Bill, I suppose largely in deference to the fact that Mr Justice Hope has recommended this new office. Even though we may have very considerable doubts about the wisdom of creating the office of Inspector-General, in view of the fact that he has recommended it we think it ought to be given a trial. However that is as far as we are prepared to go, and that is the basis of the sunset clause. One of the things that concern us in relation to the office is its size and what sort of person is likely to be appointed to it. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) referred in his second reading speech to the creation of a small office in the first instance. I am worried about the reference to a first instance. I am concerned that that approach may well lead to enlarging the office as time goes by. Indeed it seems to be the experience with all new organisations that expansion and increasing costs are inevitable. One only has to remember the way in which the Human Rights Commission was quite dramatically expanded by the present Government after it took office. From being a small advisory body it suddenly took off in large proportions and incurred ever-growing expenditure, until the current year. I would like the Minister to spell out a little more fully what the Government intends to do about this office and what size staff it has in mind. Although it may start off as a small office, is the Government assuming that it will grow and, if so, to what size is it likely to grow in the Government's estimation? I would also like the Minister to indicate whether it is the Government's intention to appoint a judge to this office. There seems to be every indication within the legislation that that is the intention of the Government but I would like to have it clarified by the Minister as well. I do not propose that we have a re-run of the debate on the Opposition's concerns about this proposal. We canvassed them fully in the second reading debate when a good deal of concentration was devoted to this question. In speaking to another amendment I have dealt at length with our concerns about the width of the functions that are to be granted. I think it would have been far better if the Government had confined the role of the Office a little more than it has done in clause 8. As I have already pointed out, extraordinarily wide functions are given to the Inspector-General. He is the Inspector-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and of all the other security services. Maybe that is another matter that the Minister will confirm. I take it that it is to be a full time appointment and not a part time one. Given the size and the range of work that is being given to the Inspector-General, it would seem that it will have to be a full time appointment with a staff that will grow in size. The Opposition certainly believes that from time to time it is desirable to have a review of intelligence services. When we debated and promoted the 1979 legislation we expressed support in principle for a judicial audit of the Organisation at regular periods of three to five years or so. When we appointed Mr Justice Woodward's successor, Mr Barnett, we indicated that about halfway through his term we would set up such a judicial audit. When this Government decided in 1983 to invite Mr Justice Hope to have a further look at the Organisation, we supported the move. We did so because it was consistent with the attitude that we had adopted, namely that there should be an external inspection every few years of ASIO and all the security organisations. We think that that form of inspection is all that is necessary. It does not always have to be a major royal commission exercise, particularly if it is done by someone who has expertise in such matters. It was noticeable that Mr Justice Hope, despite all the diversions such as the Sheraton incident and the Combe-Ivanov matter, was able to report generally on the intelligence organisations pretty promptly. The exercise was not as disruptive as a full-blooded royal commission would have been. We think that an audit approach to the security organisations is desirable and all that is required. I think that Mr Justice Hope's report indicates that that is all that is required and that it will prove to be unnecessary to have a full-scale, full time and much resourced new institution such as the Office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. We are not opposing the setting up of this position but we believe that there should be a sunset clause. Parliament should have the opportunity seriously to reconsider these matters after a period has elapsed and we have selected three years for that purpose. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.59) —The Government does not accept the amendment that has been moved by Senator Durack, which seeks to put a sunset clause into the legislation. The establishment of the Office is strongly supported by the Government. As I have said, it is recommended by Mr Justice Hope. In three years time, five years, or whenever, we as a government would be prepared to amend the legislation if that were found to be necessary. However, we have confidence in the legislation. We also have confidence, incidentally, that this way we can review the agency's activities at a much lower cost than by having full royal commissions at regular intervals, which seems to have been the process of late. The staff of the Inspector-General's Office is intended to be five, including the Inspector-General. The Government does not intend to expand that number. In fact, our restraints and restrictions on the Public Service indicate our seriousness in that area. As to whether the Inspector-General will be a judge or some other person, the legislation is flexible. It is intended that it be the best person. The only thing on which I can assure Senator Durack and give him great relief is that, despite speculation of all sorts in the newspapers lately, it will not be me. But it will be the best person. It may be a judge. That decision has not yet been made. Equally, the matter of whether it is a full time or part time position is left deliberately flexible in the legislation. The best person may be a judge, who may be available full time or part time. I cannot be any more definite than that. The legislation is deliberately open and flexible so that we can get the best person for the job. For those reasons, and hoping I have answered the questions, we will persist in our opposition to the amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.00) —While attracted in part to the notion of sunset clauses for the types of reasons that Senator Durack outlined previously, in this instance it does not seem to be an appropriate device to achieve what Senator Durack is seeking to achieve. I think one of the reasons is that the nature of the exercise is such that the review of the effectiveness of the Inspector-General necessarily would have to be done by the responsible Minister and by the executive government. Since they will, in any case, be doing that ongoing review, it would seem that there are no other outside levers that one could use to see whether this has been a useful development. Hence I think it would be advisable, in this circumstance at least, not to support the sunset clause, to retain the Inspector-General as a permanent part of the security network. At a future time, no doubt, the Government, in reviewing all matters, will review this aspect as well as others in the security operation. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment) be added. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Powell, J. F. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sanders, N. K. Grimes, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Haines, J. Tate, M. C. Jones, G. N. Vigor, D. B. McClelland, Douglas Walsh, P. A. McIntosh, G. D. Zakharov, A. O. McKiernan, J. P. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. Hill, R. Colston, M. A. Jessop, D. S. Gietzelt, A. T. Knowles, S. C. Foreman, D. J. Walters, M. S. Button, J. N. Teague, B. C. Coleman, R. N. Baume, Peter Aulich, T. Chaney, F. M. Evans, Gareth Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1986 Clauses 1 to 22-by leave-taken together. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.10) —The major amendment that the Opposition wished to make to this Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill was to clause 5. We discussed that during the debate on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill 1986, with the consent of honourable senators, and I will not now be moving that amendment. However, I do want to raise some matters in relation to definitions. One of the interesting, and perhaps even disturbing, features of this amending legislation to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 is the elimination of the notion of domestic subversion. Senator Harradine spoke on this matter yesterday during the second reading debate. I do not know whether he wishes to pursue it in Committee. I share the concern which he expressed in that contribution. It is a matter which has bothered me for some time. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate yesterday, over the years I have watched what I would describe as the paranoia of elements of the Australian Labor Party in relation to the traditional role of ASIO as set out in its current charter-it has been its role for a long time. Basically its role is to deal with matters of security which are defined as espionage, sabotage, subversion, active measures of foreign intervention and terrorism. `Subversion' is given an extended definition in the existing act which we have not yet altered, although we seem to be rapidly moving in that direction in the debate now. I recall a very extensive debate in 1979 when the current Act was going through this chamber. As a matter of fact, I recall that that debate seemed to be almost as long as the debate we had on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, but the statistics disprove that. It was certainly a very long debate. A good deal of time was spent on the proposed definitions. As I have said, I have been closely watching the development of views in the Labor Party about this matter. It is perfectly clear that a major aspect of its obsession with ASIO is its function of monitoring and reporting on subversive activities. The Australian Labor Party made a major submission to Mr Justice Hope in which it dealt at great length with this aspect. I think it influenced Mr Justice Hope to some extent in the recommendations he made. I think his views on the Inspector-General were also influenced by the strength of the ALP submission. It has resulted in the abandonment of the notion of subversion. It has been wiped out of the legislation and replaced by other definitions. The Bill contains a new definition of acts of foreign interference, instead of the old definition of active measures of foreign intervention. There is a notion of attacks on Australia's defence system, and a very extended definition of politically motivated violence takes up the old notion of subversion. The definition of subversion in the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act meets very clearly the point about which Senator Harradine is concerned, namely that we may well have an organisation dedicated to the overthrow of our political system and the destruction of the constitutional system and government of the Commonwealth, which is not promoting violence as such but which has violence up its sleeve or in the closet, so to speak, to be used if necessary. Such an organisation, if its efforts at disinformation, clandestine activities, and so on do not succeed, may have violence in mind as the ultimate weapon. That is a very serious matter for the community. It is an appropriate function of a security organisation to monitor what is going on in organisations of that kind. We have the authority now in the words of the present Director-General, whose recent speech to the National Press Club, from which I quoted in my speech in the second reading debate, completely exploded the theories about which Senator Harradine, the Opposition and I share a concern that these matters are just alarmist, old fashioned and unjustified and belong to another day and age. Mr Wrigley is a new man to the security field. He came in from outside and he confesses that he did not know much about it, but after 12 months as Director-General of ASIO he has made a major contribution. He has certainly indicated that these are matters of concern to our society. They are threats to our society and clearly should be watched. There is a good deal of confusion about the monitoring role of a security organisation such as ASIO as compared with its enforcement role. There may not be any justification at all for taking law enforcement action, criminal proceedings, or any other action against a group of people at their present stage of thinking. That may be completely unjustified. Nevertheless, if these organisations are a potential threat to our system and way of life, watching them is quite justified. It is quite appropriate for a security organisation, acting in a discreet way, which ASIO now does-and if it is able to do anything effective after this legislation goes through-to watch these organisations. In fact, that is necessary. I am concerned, like Senator Harradine, that the new definition of `politically motivated violence' is not clear. The legislation does not make it clear. One can only assume from what has been said and from the elimination of the word `subversion' altogether that it is the intention of the Government that bodies of this kind, identified so clearly by Senator Harradine yesterday, should not be the subject of attention from ASIO. The mere fact that the word `violence' is used in the phrase `politically motivated violence' seems to suggest that that is the intention. However, when one looks at the fine print of the definition of `politically motivated violence', particularly limb (b) (ii), it seems that this legislation would enable ASIO to watch these organisations. It is left in doubt, and I fear that it is left in doubt for the Government's political reasons. The Government wants to be able to tell its left wing paranoiac elements that it is not going to allow ASIO to watch over their mates, or others. At the same time, it seems as though the definition has been couched in a way which will meet the concerns Senator Harradine and I have expressed. I would like the Government to come clean one way or another on it. It has abandoned the notion of subversion completely, with a big splash. It says: `We now have a better way of doing it, a more modern way. We want to be up to date'. The Government wants to have regard for civil liberties and human rights and all the things it is constantly mouthing. But is the government really dinkum about this-I hope that it is-or is it keeping a foot in the door? I want to get it clear. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.24) —The points raised by Senator Durack are very important. Last night the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) responded to the points I made in my speech during the second reading debate. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, although it is somewhat difficult properly to assess the response until one has read it in Hansard. I notice that the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, is in the chamber. I welcome him back to the chamber and hope that his important mission overseas was successful. I remind Senator Evans of what I indicated last night and what has been well said by Senator Durack today. My concern is that the amendments to the Act seem to propose that as long as individuals and organisations do not go beyond what in this legislation is described as `lawful advocacy, protest or dissent' the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation will not target them for investigation. To put it another way, only those individuals or groups which explicitly adopt political principles and programs of action which involve commitment to violent political activity will receive attention from ASIO. If that were so it would mean, as Senator Durack said, that ASIO would be prevented from detecting, within otherwise peaceful seeming and legitimate groups, embryonic developments which could ultimately take the form of a clearly violent threat to legitimate government, to the Constitution, and to democracy itself. I want to make it very clear, as I think everyone around this chamber has made it clear, that we are touching on very delicate matters indeed and that concern for security should not develop into a preoccupation which, in the end, devours the very liberties and institutions which security agencies are intended to protect. On the other hand, the opposite tendency, that is to say, a myopic preoccupation with preserving civil liberties, can weaken the nation's defences so that it becomes incapable of preserving its liberties and institutions when they are faced with a real threat. I was saying that I wondered whether that was the trap into which this piece of legislation falls. Just to give the Minister an example, the legislation appeared to me, before the response last night, to prohibit ASIO from investigating politically subversive activities. As far as I could see, ASIO would need to wait until potential subversion became actual. My concern was that this would signal to subversive activists, whether they be domestic or agents of a foreign power, that a disguise of-I use the words in the legislation-`lawful advocacy, protest, or dissent' would debar ASIO from conducting intelligence operations against them. As I have said, I listened carefully to what Senator Grimes said last night. I have not had the opportunity of reading carefully his response in the written form-the Hansard. This is a very important matter and that is why I have followed Senator Durack on this question. I do not have any amendments, but I believe that assurances are necessary from the Government that the legislation, or ASIO operational orders, will not deter ASIO from identifying and investigating individuals or groups who are targets, for example, of Soviet active measures in this country. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.27) —I thank Senator Harradine for welcoming me back to this country, which occurred only a few minutes ago. As a result, I have not had an opportunity to catch up with the course of this debate to date or even to hear the opening part of Senator Durack's argument. Senator Durack —I did not even have the good luck to finish it before you returned. I was not so lucky. Senator GARETH EVANS —If the honour- able senator does not want me to respond to anything he has said I will be delighted to sit down. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.28) —I really think that was a childish, petulant response from the Minister for Resources and Energy. Senator Harradine raised this matter in the debate on the second reading and had some reply from the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), but he has not been able to evaluate it because, as he said, he has not seen it. It is a matter which concerns me. I would have raised it in the debate on the second reading if I had had time. I raised it at great length this morning. I think it is the responsibility of the Minister at least to attempt to respond to it and not to treat the Committee with the utter contempt that we have just had meted out to us. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.30) — My response was not a matter of contempt; it was just a matter of not wanting to tread over ground that has already been trodden or to bore anyone to death. The points I can make may well have been made already by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who has been handling the Bill to this point. There is no intention, by the rewriting of the definitional provisions-in particular removing the concept of `subversion' as it previously existed-to reduce the effectiveness of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to deal with threats, real and potential, of a kind that Senator Harradine at least was concerned about. Nor do we think there will be any such lessening of effectiveness. It is important-I think this is the basic point-that ASIO use its resources efficiently and effectively for intelligence collection. This means devoting its investigative capacity to activities that represent a real threat to the security of the nation. It is very much in line with the recommendation of Mr Justice Hope that the Bill deletes the very vague term `subversion' from the definition of `security' in favour of the rather more precise concept of `politically motivated violence'. Essentially, the reason is to focus on the concept of a real threat rather than a threat which is three, four or five degrees away from reality or likely implementation. It is only those activities which can reasonably be regarded as being of genuine security concern within a contemporary time frame that will now attract the powers that the Organisation has. We believe that is perfectly appropriate. I think the point ought to be made that there is no limitation on the Organisation's capacity to go on collecting material that in one way or another is on the public record and in that sense to keep an eye on developments right across the political and associated spectrums that may, in turn, over time, lead to concerns arising about the definitions in the legislation actually being attracted; in other words, the sorts of things Senator Harradine is concerned about, some very early nascent development of an organisation which may not have overtly articulated views or, more particularly, may not be engaging in actions that are likely to attract these definitional concerns at the moment. It may nonetheless be an organisation or group of individuals which has a possibility of attracting that concern in the future. There is no reason why ASIO, in the course of its ordinary duties to gather information, cannot accumulate such material and be accordingly prepared to use such powers and investigative capacity as it has later should these definitions be attracted. It is very difficult to draw some of these lines, but the important point is to ensure that the organisation does not waste its resources, as many have suspected it has wasted them in the past-quite apart from the civil liberty implications-in engaging in the full panoply of investigative activities in relation to possible subversion under the old definition, which was wide enough to encompass behaviour many degrees away from anything that might reasonably be thought to properly attract the concern of the nation. It is important to appreciate that there is no question in any of this measure that any activities which could possibly be regarded as constituting terrorism, or which are potentially involved in maybe leading to terrorism, will be excluded. The `politically motivated violence' definition, in the way in which it is constructed in the Bill, is clearly wide enough to encompass that, which in many ways is the central area of concern for any security organisation in this or any other country at present. I think that is really all I can say in general terms. I am happy to offer, if that is any help to Senator Harradine, the general assurance that he seeks that we understand the point that he is making and do not see the language of this Bill as in any way undermining the effectiveness of this or any other government or security organisation to keep itself informed of developments which might in due course properly attract security concern. Clauses agreed to. Clause 23 (Findings of Tribunal). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.36) — On behalf of the Government, I move: Page 12, clause 23, lines 14 to 16, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Findings of Tribunal `23. Section 60 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (1) ``or as to the question to which the assessment relates''; and (b) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: ``(1a) The Tribunal shall not make findings in relation to an assessment that would, under section 61, have the effect of superseding any information that is, under sub-section 37 (2), deemed to be part of the assessment unless those findings state that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the information is incorrect, incorrectly represented or could not reasonably be relevant to the requirements of security.''.'. This amendment is an exercise in fine tuning rather than a substantive change. It relates to the Security Appeals Tribunal. The function of that Tribunal is to review adverse or qualified security assessments furnished to government agencies by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. An adverse assessment contains an opinion, advice or information which is or could be prejudicial to the interests of the person involved, together with a recommendation from ASIO that relevant action, such as the granting of a security clearance, be not taken. A qualified assessment contains an opinion, advice or information but does not contain a positive recommendation. The proposed amendment is to clarify the effect of the Tribunal's findings in respect of information contained in the statement of grounds upon which an adverse or qualified security assessment is based. The amendment is to make it clear that information is to be deleted by the Tribunal from an assessment only if that information is incorrect, incorrectly represented or could not reasonably be relevant to the requirements of security. The amendment does not affect the Tribunal's power to include in its finding an opinion on the weight to be given to any particular information. The amendment also complements the new definition of `qualified security assessment' which is provided for in clause 19 (b) of the Bill. Accordingly, I commend the amendment to the Committee. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 38-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 39. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.38) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I move: (1) Page 17, clause 39, after proposed new sub-section 92c (4), add following sub-section: `(5) Sub-section (4) shall not be taken to apply to a matter, an aspect of the activities of the Organisation or a proposed inquiry unless the Minister has given to the Presiding Member or to the member exercising the powers of the Presiding Member a certificate stating that the Minister is satisfied that the matter, aspect or proposed inquiry, as the case may be, is one to which sub-section (4) applies.'. The Australian Democrats have moved this amendment because of an inability to understand, in terms of this legislation, who in fact is the person to make the decisions with regard to the proposed new sub-section 92c (4). We are here dealing with a committee of the Parliament. Proposed new sub-section 92c (4) says clearly: The functions of the Committee do not include- (a) reviewing a matter that relates to the obtaining or communicating by the Organization of foreign intelligence; (b) reviewing an aspect of the activities of the Organization that does not affect any person who is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident; (c) reviewing a matter, including a matter that relates to intelligence collection methods or sources of information, that is operationally sensitive; or (d) originating inquiries into individual complaints concerning the activities of the Organization. The Australian Democrats, though we may quibble about some of those items, accept nevertheless that the functions of the committee should not include each of them. The debate is not about whether or not the committee should inquire into those matters. The question that we raise with our amendment is who is going to decide whether a matter falls under the provisions of sub-section (4). In particular, I draw the attention of the Minister to (4) (c) which, to paraphrase, excludes from the functions of the committee the reviewing of a matter that is operationally sensitive. Who will decide whether a matter is operationally sensitive? We can think of only two sources for such a decision. Obviously, one is the Minister, and that is the one we have chosen here. The other, of course, is the Director-General of ASIO. If ASIO is to determine whether a matter is covered by (a), (b), (c) or (d), I am not at all sure what the committee will be able to do in that regard inasmuch as it would not know whether a matter excluded from its consideration because it had been declared by the agency to be operationally sensitive was operationally sensitive. Fairly obviously, this is a difficulty for this committee. It is a difficulty which has already been met, in part, by the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and it is of concern to us. The Democrats have indicated support for the committee but we believe that in some way there ought to be some certainty about who is going to say when an item falls under (a), (b), (c) or (d) rather than leave sub-section (4) in the fashion in which it currently appears. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.43) — The short answer to Senator Macklin's concerns is, I think, that proposed new section 92a does, in fact, confer upon the Minister a power to give exactly the kind of certification in extremis, if you like, that Senator Macklin wants to have explicitly written into the description in 92c. I think as a practical matter the question of what is and what is not a proper function of the committee will almost invariably be sorted out within the committee. The Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or other witnesses appearing before the committee would no doubt take objection to some line of examination or questioning if it was felt that it infringed on the prohibitions in 92c (4) and in the normal course the chairman of the committee could be expected to deal with any such objection in a rational way. But if it got to the point that informal procedures of that kind were not resolving the issue to everyone's satisfaction and it was necessary, in effect, for an impasse to be resolved-if it was an impasse between the committee's clear majority view on the one hand and ASIO's view on the other-rather than it being a matter for ASIO simply to sit tight and refuse to deal with the line of questioning on the ground that it was claimed to come within any of these categories, the Government believes that the proper course would be to rely on the certification procedure in 92k, which relates to someone giving evidence before the committee in circumstances which I think are wide enough to accommodate Senator Macklin's concern. While acknowledging the case for spelling some of this out in more detail in 92c, I think the short point again is that it is covered elsewhere. It may be better not to involve the Minister as a matter of course in the day to day dealings, as it were, of the committee in the way that Senator Macklin's amendment rather implies that he would be. It may be better to leave 92c as it is stated, acknowledging and recognising that there is a capacity for ministerial resolution of these problems should a real problem arise. For those reasons I suggest that the Senate note the point, but accept that the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1986 as presently cast covers the issue, and reject the amendment accordingly. Amendment negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.46) —I move: Page 19, clause 39, proposed new sub-section 92f (2), leave out `, with the approval of the Minister,'. This is a somewhat different matter. It concerns me that, while what we are dealing with here is a novel situation for sure, we are still dealing with a committee of the Parliament. The prohibition in proposed new sub-section 92f reads as follows: Where a matter is referred to the Committee for Review, the Committee shall conduct the review in private unless the Committee, with the approval of the Minister, otherwise determines. Following the line of reasoning, which I was happy to accept, in the statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) on 92k, it would seem to follow that the Minister, rather than involving himself at this stage, would involve himself at a later stage. In other words, the committee itself ought to determine one way or the other where it is going to meet, provided that it remains within the prohibitions in 92c. It seems to me to be an undue interference with the operation of a committee of the Parliament that a member of the Executive could determine whether a hearing was going to be private or public. If there is to be a committee of the Parliament, it seems to me that, provided it remains within its statutory requirements, it can meet in public or in private as it so chooses, rather than be subject to the requirement in 92f. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.48) —I really think this is just a matter of the basic philosophy with which one approaches the whole question of having a parliamentary committee dealing with security and intelligence matters. I think the working presumption has to be that the operations of the committee will be not of a public kind unless there is some overriding reason to make them so, or some justification or reason which is perfectly apparent and not such as to give rise to any sensitivity. I think it is in developing that theme that the requirement of privacy for these proceedings is built into the legislation as the primary one, with a gateway being allowed, but only in exceptional circumstances, for public proceedings to occur. Although this is wholly at odds, naturally, with the normal ground rules that apply to committee proceedings in this Parliament, I suggest to Senator Macklin that it is not at all inappropriate, given the extreme sensitivity of the matters we are here dealing with. Indeed, it may be very much in the interests of maintaining the effectiveness of the committee that it sees its role as essentially being to scrutinise and probe the organisation and report to Parliament rather than being one of publicly holding hearings and examinations which, by virtue of the strictures on the committee's charter and so on, are necessarily going to be fairly limited anyway. I think the best thing that could happen would be for an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence to arise in the dealings between the committee and the organisation such that the organisation felt that it could be frank and full in its dealings with the committee in the knowledge that that frankness and fullness would not immediately find its way into the public domain. The Government would want to hold fast on the principle that the proceedings of the committee get out of the private domain when not only the committee but also the Minister of the day feel it appropriate. It should not in any way inhibit the committee's effectiveness in terms of either its capacity to extract information within its charter or to report as it thinks appropriate to the Parliament. It is something we feel is important to maintain if this basic experiment-that is what it is in terms of parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence machinery-is not to abort. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.51) —I listened carefully to what the Minister said. The reasons he gave for the Government's opposition to the amendment all went to the notion of privacy of the committee hearings. I do not quibble with that. It is turning it around the other way and I accept the reasons as to why it needs to be turned around the other way. The normal operation would be that this committee would meet in private. However, the point to which the Minister did not address himself, except at the end of his speech when he said that he thinks that situation should continue, is why the Minister, rather than the committee, gets into this operation. I accept that the committee should meet in private but it seems that if a committee of this Parliament, in fulfilling its duty in accordance with proposed new section 92c, wishes to determine otherwise it should be able to do so. I fail to see how the approval of the Minister is involved or for what reasons he is involved, because the Minister has not advanced any reasons to date as to why the Minister rather than just the committee is also to be involved in that decision. Why do both groups have to agree? Why is it not sufficient for a committee, which after all is a responsible committee of this Parliament looking at a very important matter, to determine itself that this is an appropriate matter to be heard in public? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.52) — All I can say is that the conduct of a security organisation is a peculiarly sensitive aspect of executive government. While nobody doubts the necessity for that aspect of executive government to be conducted in accordance with strict statutory rules and while this Government has been willing to allow much greater scrutiny of that function than any previous government has even been willing to contemplate, it nonetheless remains an important sense in which the Executive Government should be able to retain control over the extent to which these sensitive aspects of its operation are exposed in the public domain. It is only a very limited form of control because the parliamentary committee has the capacity to report in all the ways that are here set out. No doubt if the parliamentary committee is profoundly disturbed by something it comes across there are ways and means by which that concern can make itself manifest. However, there is a sense in which the proceedings and operations of an organisation such as this can be put at risk. I am thinking particularly not so much of the traditional areas of civil libertarian concern about anti-subversion and all the rest of it, because I do not think there is much to be risked at all by a very full spotlight going on that sort of activity. But when one is talking about terrorist activities, not even in a specific operational sense because all of that is excluded from the committee's consideration, and when one is probing around the modus operandi of the organisation and the kinds of resources it devotes to this area, there is a sense in which there can be real dangers to its effectiveness by too much publicity attaching to it. It is something which has to be done with a very fine and careful sense of balance and discretion all round. I have no personal doubt that the committee will respect, almost invariably, the spirit of this legislation and will want to keep its proceedings private because it will take the view that it is likely to be most effective in getting information in that forum. However, it may be that some committee at some time in the future is not minded to respect those basic principles or that basic approach and it may be necessary for the government of the day to exercise that sensitivity for the committee rather than let it go off on a frolic of its own. It is under those circumstances that the Government has taken the view, although it acknowledges the force of the point that Senator Macklin makes, that just as a further fail-safe mechanism at least while we are coming to terms with this quite unprecedented new machinery in Australian government, this business of having the hearings proceed in public ought to be within the capacity of the Minister to control. I hope that that is a sufficient further explanation. I do not know whether it will be acceptable to Senator Macklin but he cannot say that I have not at least tried to explain our position. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.57) —I do not know how seriously the Australian Democrats are pursuing this amendment. I entirely agree with the views expressed by Senator Gareth Evans on behalf of the Government. We support the provisions of the Bill as it is printed, for his reasons and for a whole host of other reasons. He was not here to listen to the previous debate but I think the very existence of this committee will possibly compromise some of the sensitive activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, which Senator Evans has very clearly indicated. I do not want another rerun of the second reading debate on that issue but if we are to have a committee, which unfortunately it seems we will, at least it ought not to sit in public unless the Executive does not see any harm in that. If we are to have a committee which will grandstand on issues and if there is some political mileage to be obtained out of it-I have no doubt that it is the habit of politicians to behave in that way-somebody has to exercise some responsibility. Little government responsibility will be left in these matters as it is. I certainly agree with this provision in the Bill. Amendment negatived. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.59) —I move: (2) Page 24, clause 39, leave out proposed new section 92p. This amendment was not moved by the Opposition in the other place; it had not focused on it at that stage. It concerns one of the clauses dealing with the committee. Proposed new section 92p states: A person appearing before the Committee as a witness has the same protection and privileges, and is, in addition to the penalties provided by this Act, subject to the same liabilities in any civil or criminal proceeding, as a witness in proceedings in the High Court. I can only say that whoever drafted this legislation must have grabbed some old precedent. I suppose it is fairly common for conveyancers and drafters to do that. This is an old form of precedent relating to parliamentary committees. I can only conclude that whoever drafted it was totally unaware of, and certainly paid no regard to, the very extensive debate that has been going on over the last couple of years about the privileges of parliament and parliamentary committees. It has been the subject of a major debate in the Senate. It has been the subject of at least two judgments of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It has been the subject, in a broader context, of an investigation by a joint committee on parliamentary privilege. It is now the subject of a Bill that was presented to the Senate only the other day by the President. I think it is quite ridiculous to incorporate in this committee this old-fashioned and outmoded provision. The question of the powers and privileges of parliamentary committees is now the subject of a good deal of debate. It will certainly not be resolved by this clause. I think it is very likely to be resolved by the approach of the President's Parliamentary Privileges Bill, which was the subject of all-party discussions before he introduced it. I cannot say that this clause will do any harm but it seems quite inappropriate, in the light of the debate that has been going on about this subject and in the light of the possible and probable resolution of it in the coming months, that this committee should be saddled with this provision. It is quite unnecessary. It is not as though the legislation must contain a provision relating to the privileges of witnesses appearing before that committee. It may be a pity that we have not advanced the solution of the problem to a stage where that solution could be incorporated into this proposed new Act. I use the analogy of the National Crime Authority Act which set up a parliamentary committee to oversee that Authority. There is no provision in that Act regarding the privileges of witnesses. It is unnecessary because, broadly speaking, those privileges are fairly well established. Problems have arisen, as I said, from recent judgments in New South Wales, but they are likely to be resolved by the President's Bill or something along those lines. So this clause is old-fashioned, outmoded and unnecessary. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.03) —The Australian Democrats will support the Opposition's amendment. As Senator Durack said, it is certainly an old precedent. I am reliably informed that it dates back to the Royal Commissions Act 1902. So it has a pretty good history in this Parliament. I also understand that it managed to find its way into the notion of committees in 1913. So the Minister certainly has precedent on his side. However, I think the more important precedent is the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. This provision does not appear in the legislation which set up that Committee. That seems to me to be the more appropriate precedent. I refer also to the Parliamentary Privileges Bill introduced by the President which provides protections for witnesses. In any event, the provisions in this case relate to witnesses appearing in proceedings before the High Court of Australia. As I understand it, the provision relating to the High Court is simply a matter of common law. Indeed, under the Parliamentary Privileges Bill there would be more protection for witnesses than under the High Court provision in this case. I would have thought it was inappropriate on a number of grounds, but the most important one is that the Senate, in a short space of time, I hope will move to codify for the first time under its constitutional powers the privileges of this Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.05) — Although my instructions do not extend to acceding to this amendment, it seems that I do not have any choice but to acknowledge the reality that it will be passed. Senator Durack —You are all for being modern, though, aren't you? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was about to say that I have no particular desire, in any event, to stand on the deck saluting as the ship sinks beneath the waves. I am inclined to concede the force of the points that have been made by both Senator Durack and Senator Macklin. There are precedents for this, the most obvious being in the Public Works Committee Act 1969. I think there is a similar provision-in identical terms or similar language-in the Public Accounts Committee Act. I gather that the reason for it has been the memory of Mr Odgers lingering on, with his expression of concern at various times in the past that it may be that parliamentary privilege is not attracted by a joint committee-a joint committee being an animal unknown to the Tudors and the Stuarts, however much it might have been a part of our landscape in more recent centuries. An abundance of caution has led to provision of this kind being built into legislation establishing joint committees. That argument had the wind taken out of its sails, though, when I also discovered a moment ago that the joint committee established to scrutinise the National Crime Authority did not contain such a provision, with results that do not seem to have caused any particular alarm or anxiety so far. The only thing to be said in favour of the clause is that it is perhaps usefully inserted out of an abundance of caution until such time-but only until such time-as we succeed in codifying the law of privilege as it extends to committee proceedings generally. When we do that-I hope, sharing the view of Senator Macklin, it will not be too far away-it would be, or course, quite appropriate to remove provisions of this kind not only from this legislation but also from other Acts where it appears, in order to have a clean set of provisions establishing these principles once and for all. Having said that, I do not believe it will do any harm to take it out. Without pressing this to a division, I acknowledge that that is what will happen. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1986 Clauses 1 to 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Definition of seditious intention). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.08) —I move: (1) Page 3, clause 11, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: `11. Section 24a of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by adding at the end of paragraph (a) `or to excite disaffection against the Sovereign'; and (b) by omitting paragraphs (b), (c) and (e).'. This is a small but important amendment to clause 11. It makes important changes, although short ones, to section 24a of the Crimes Act. Indeed, a number of important amendments to the Crimes Act are made in this Part of the Bill which give effect to the recommendations of Mr Justice Hope. Generally, they incorporate important protections for people which are absent from the existing Act, namely, as to their intention when they are engaged in seditious enterprises or purposes. In section 24a there is the elimination of three specific matters which amount to seditious purpose. Section 24a reads: An intention to effect any of the following purposes . . . . . . (b) to excite disaffection against the Sovereign or the Government or Constitution of the United Kingdom or against either House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; It is proposed that that be taken out of the Crimes Act. The section also says: to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution of any of the Queen's dominions. . . . (e) to excite disaffection against the connection of the Queen's dominions under the Crown. Remaining as seditious purposes in section 24a after those amendments would be a purpose or intention: to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt; to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution of the Commonwealth or against either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth- that is, the Commonwealth of Australia- to excite Her Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter in the Commonwealth established by law of the Commonwealth; or . . . to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth. These amendments leave the very important provisions as to seditious intention. When looking at the amendments that have been proposed, it is pretty clear that their intention is to remove from the definition of `seditious intention' intentions which relate to countries other than Australia but which historically have been treated as Australian interests because of their close association with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. So it is intended to take out of the definition of `seditious intention' the purpose of disaffection against the government or constitution of the United Kingdom or against either House of Parliament or disaffection against the constitution or government of any of the dominions, which now is a pretty old-fashioned expression, anyway. The other definition, which I do not need to read again, is in the same vein. The amendment removes from the definition of `seditious intention' exciting disaffection against the sovereign. Some mistake has occurred. Utter confusion seems to have reigned in the House of Representatives. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), perhaps not surprisingly, did not seem to understand what it was all about. I am sure that even with my limited powers of advocacy I will be able to explain to Senator Evans what this is about. Whether he agrees is another matter. The point of the Opposition's amendment is that we should retain in the notion of seditious intention an intention to effect the purpose of exciting disaffection against the sovereign. Instead of having that stated separately we suggested that to the limb being preserved `to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt' the words in limb (b) `or to excite disaffection against the Sovereign' should be added. We have no problem with the rest of the section because there are very sensible and logical reasons for the elimination of the other elements. They all hang together, as I have explained. We do not regard the sovereign as the sovereign of the United Kingdom or some other dominion. She is the sovereign of Australia. It is just as inappropriate for people to excite disaffection against her as it is to bring her into hatred and contempt, which part of the Act the Government intends to retain, or to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution of the Commonwealth or either House of Parliament, which part also the Government intends to retain. We support that but something has gone wrong. We ought to retain exciting disaffection against the sovereign as a seditious intention. That is the purpose of our amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.15) — I confess to a certain unease about retaining any of the language on the statute book. It all seems to me to be gloriously archaic to be making it possible still for people to be subject to impri-sonment for three years under the Crimes Act for engaging in a seditious enterprise if that seditious enterprise is defined, as it is in the Crimes Act in section 24b, as `an enterprise undertaken in order to carry out a seditious intention'. In the definition of `seditious intention' one finds that the sorts of things constitu-ting seditious intention include an intention to bring the sovereign into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection in various ways against the Government or the Constitution. Senator Harradine —Or abolish the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —There is a sense in which all this language, if carried to its logical or perhaps illogical conclusion, could be quite a profound inhibitor of free, political, robust debate about institutions. Senator Durack —You are going well beyond your brief. Senator GARETH EVANS —That may be so, but I have to be allowed some latitude. Senator Macklin —You can claim jet lag. Senator GARETH EVANS —I could always explain it as jet lag if the occasion demands, as Senator Macklin reminds me. It is important to appreciate the context in which we are debating this new refinement to the archaicism of it all which Senator Durack, with his customary enthusiasm in such matters, has put before us. At the outset, I am saying that it is wholly unlikely that any of this stuff will mean anything in practice. If it did turn out to mean something in practice it would be a fairly alarming state of affairs. Since it is in the statute book and there is an argument about it, I simply say that `to bring the sovereign into hatred or contempt', which the Government-I will not say in its wisdom-has agreed to retain in the statute book as a form of seditious intent which would justify a criminal prosecution, is certainly enough to include the phenomenon of exciting disaffection against the sovereign. As a result, there is no need to add that language to paragraph (a), as Senator Durack is proposing. We are in no disagreement with the desirability of removing paragraphs (b), (c) and (e), which extend to exciting disaffection against other people's sovereigns or other countries. It is only a question as to whether the language of exciting disaffection against the sovereign should be added to the language of bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt. It seems to me that if one is in the business of exciting disaffection one is clearly in the business of bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt. I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, quite apart from everything else that might be thought to be wrong with this provision. It would not be desirable to extend it any further that was strictly necessary to retain its core meaning. That is the position that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) took in the House of Representatives. Accordingly, it is the position that I express on behalf of the Government. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.19) —I indicate that the Australian Democrats will not support the Opposition's amendment. Archaic or anachronistic as these items might be, I presume that in civilised times gone by some people managed to lose their heads over such activities. When wandering around the Tower of London the places where people lost their heads over having aroused at least a mild disaffection for the sovereign are gleefully pointed out. I could not put out of my mind the rather delightful story about the corgis that I saw being told by Gough Whitlam on the Clive James program. It seems to me that the corgis' particular activity in that story may very well have excited disaffection against the sovereign and come under the Crimes Act. I do not agree with the Minister that if one is exciting disaffection against the sovereign one is into hatred and contempt. It seems to me that the Crimes Act ought to cover only those serious matters, that people who wander around exciting disaffection against the sovereign are wholly excusable individuals within our society and that no crime or penalty ought to be attached to them, whether one agrees with them or not. I think that the paragraph about bringing the sovereign into hatred and contempt is important and ought to be retained, in as much as the Sovereign is the Head of State. In a constitutional monarchy it seems to me appropriate that that item should remain. I think that the other items are certainly from times gone by and it is useful when these opportunities arise to eliminate at least some of the rather odd bits that are still on the statute book. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.21) —I moved this amendment on the assumption that there had been a foul-up in the drafting of this proposal. I now find that the Government is really quite serious about it and is supported by the Democrats. This is a matter of great concern. It is a pity that when we come to discuss questions relating to loyalty to the Queen and the status of the Queen in our Constitution it becomes a matter of frivolity between members of the Labor Party and the Democrats. We know perfectly well where the Labor Party and Senator Gareth Evans stand. Senator Evans wants to abolish the flag, and no doubt he wants in due course to abolish the office of Queen as Queen of Australia and then set up a presidency, for which he will no doubt be a candidate. But this a serious matter. I am surprised that the Government has seriously proceeded with this proposal. The arguments that Senator Gareth Evans has advanced simply do not hold water. The Government and Senator Macklin want to get rid of old notions about exciting disaffection. I know these are old-fashioned phrases. They have been around for a long time, but they have legal meaning and they have been applied. Maybe they could be better expressed. But neither the Government nor Senator Macklin is taking exception to or suggesting any amendment to all the other provisions of the Crimes Act which use the phrase `disaffection against the Government or Constitution of the Commonwealth or either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth'. We are leaving in there what the Government and the Democrats think is a rather foolish old phrase or a matter of joke. We are leaving in there that phrase as it relates to ourselves; that is, it remains a seditious intention `to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution of the Commonwealth or either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth' and an enterprise undertaken in pursuance of such an intention remains a seditious enterprise. For goodness sake, let us have some logic in this proposal. Senator Evans apparently is serious about getting rid of these notions. It is not his brief-it is not the Government's proposal-to do so, but at least it is more logical than the Government's proposal, which is to retain these notions in relation to ourselves, to the Government and so on, but to take them out in relation to the sovereign. Exciting disaffection against the sovereign is not the same as bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt. That is a different notion. It is not good enough to say, as Senator Evans has said: `Well, we don't need that there because we are retaining the seditious intention of bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt'. The point is that, after the other amendments are passed, it will not be an offence carrying a penalty of imprisonment for three years simply to engage in an enterprise to give effect to this intention. Very properly-I think this is what Mr Justice Hope was basically concerned about in the sections which create the offences and which invoke the penalty of three years imprisonment-as the amendment to section 24c provides, it is an offence only if it is done `with the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance'. These intentions are added in other sections. They are the ways in which the Government proposes to go to eliminate the criticism of this whole section that Senator Evans has expressed. They limit very considerably what are probably the too wide definitions that appear in the offence-creating clause of the Crimes Act, and the Opposition is not in any way objecting to that. What we are objecting to is this further attempt to place the sovereign on a lower rung, so to speak, than the rest of the Constitution, which includes the Government and ourselves as members of one of the Houses of Parliament. I think it is appropriate to retain the original notion. It may be better to have it in more modern language-I concede that-but the Government is not proposing that. It is retaining the term `disaffection' in relation to other parts of the Constitution. I find it extraordinary that the Government wants to eliminate that notion from the role of the sovereign. This whole thing seems to have acquired a great deal more significance than I thought it would. When I saw this amendment I felt it was simply a mistake and therefore moved my amendment. I had every reason to believe that from the debate in the House of Representatives. It now turns out that it is not a mistake, that it is the clear intention of the Government to treat the sovereign in a different way from the way in which it treats the rest of the Constitution, and I certainly will press the amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.27) —I have been listening carefully to what Senator Durack, Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Macklin have said. I understand what Senator Durack was getting at, but in the absence of anything coming from the Government which would persuade me to vote for the Opposition's amendment, there must be some reason that is being put forward by the Government for its amendment. I offer this consideration to the Committee: It seems to me that it is not an appropriate argument to say that because the provision relating to excitement to disaffection against the Senate or both Houses of Parliament is to be retained it should therefore be retained for the sovereign. The sovereign is both an institution and a person. The Senate is not a person, it is an institution. Although persons can incite others to hatred or contempt for the Senate, nevertheless that is not a direct thrust against a person-it is against an institution-and thus the wording `excitement to disaffection' is probably more appropriate in the legal sense towards an institution than it is towards a person. As the Head of State the sovereign embodies the principles upon which that society is established. There may well be people who would seek to excite disaffection from the sovereign as an institution. To do that, one would assume they would be inciting persons to hatred and contempt of that institution and may, in the course of that action, be reflecting on the Queen as a person. Therefore, it seems to me that the provision that will be retained, the provision about exciting hatred and contempt for the sovereign, covers the question of exciting disaffection for the sovereign. Under those circumstances I will not be supporting the Opposition's amendment. I am not clear on what the legal definition of disaffection is. I have hurriedly tried to get that definition but I do not have it at present. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.31) —I am indebted to Senator Harradine for offering one possible way through this and the distinction between institutions and individuals and so on. I am rather inclined to accept the logic of Senator Durack's view that if we are to retain a provision which in effect prohibits the exciting of disaffection against the Government and the Constitution, we have to come up with some reason for not having a similar provision as far as the sovereign is concerned. Rather than resolving the inconsistency-if indeed there is one-in favour of adding a reference to exciting disaffection against the sovereign, my personal preference would be to remove the reference to exciting disaffection against the Parliament and the Constitution. I undertake to the Committee to raise this with the Government. It is far beyond my brief at the moment and I do not want to urge the Australian Democrats to move an amendment because we could not support it at this stage. I think concerns from the point of view of free speech and so on have emerged in this debate about the retention of paragraph (d). There might be some justification for its existence which I cannot think of at the moment. In looking at it by itself, it seems to raise real problems of principle in a way that is not true, for example, of paragraphs (f) and (g) which are not unimportant provisions to retain, or in fact paragraph (a)-bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt-if that is what is intended. It is not just the intention to do it but the success in bringing the sovereign into hatred and contempt that would have the capacity to undermine that institution. In the same way, the mere exciting or attempting to excite disaffection against the Constitution or the Government is not regarded, I think, appropriately as something which is dangerous but rather as something that is part of the cut and thrust of ordinary democracy as we know it. That being said, what do we do with paragraph (a) at the moment? I think we should leave it exactly as it is on the basis that it does what it has to do to protect the institution. I think anything added to it is redundant. If we were to add the concept of exciting disaffection against the sovereign we would have a situation of the exciting of disaffection being of such an order of seriousness that it results in the sovereign being brought into hatred or contempt, in which case the problem would be covered by the existing language of paragraph (a); or, alternatively, an exciting of disaffection which was not so serious as to succeed in bringing the sovereign into hatred or contempt but was merely a bit of stirring by the individual organisation in question, which seems to me not to be the sort of thing which ought to be prohibited by law. As Senator Durack reminds us, the remaining part of section 24c of the Crimes Act will in fact be amended to require not just a seditious intention in the abstract but an intention of actually causing violence or creating public disorder or public disturbance. Even with the insertion of that further proviso, the intention of creating a public disorder or violence is not the same as achieving disorder or violence. So it is still possible for someone to be prosecuted and gaoled for three years for saying something which might be thought as exciting disaffection, saying it with the intention of generating a degree of disorder, but succeeding in doing nothing of the kind, and nobody taking any notice of it at all. Senator Durack —Attempts are criminal. Senator GARETH EVANS —But attempts, maybe, ought not to be criminal when-- Senator Durack —What about attempts at murder? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is a hell of a difference, as I thought even Senator Du-rack would understand, between murdering someone and speaking out against the inequity of either the Constitution and the Parliament or-goodness gracious-the sovereign. It is important to distinguish between what, at the end of the day, we are worried about happening. It seems to me that while there may be things that we want the legislation to prohibit, if they go to the heart and soul of the body politic and there is a real danger of real harm being done, if we are talking about this realm of intention and possibility and all the rest of it, it is entirely appropriate as a matter of first principle that the scope of these provisions be confined as narrowly as possible. For that reason I resist the amendment to paragraph (a), but I acknowledge the point of Senator Durack's argument that if we resist that language in (a) perhaps we ought to think twice about it in (d). I will bring that aspect of the matter to the Government's attention because it may be that it has not been sufficiently thoroughly thought through. It may be something we should come back to and have another look at. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.38) —Having regard to what Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Durack have said, I have now had a chance to look at what disaffection means according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary. It says: Disaffection connotes enmity and hostility, estranged allegiance, disloyalty, hostility to constituted authority, or to a particular form of political government . . . It refers to Burns v. Ransley, 1949, ALR 817. In my reading of that definition, perhaps the words `contempt' and `hatred' should have been omitted and the word `disaffection' should have stayed. Under those circumstances, I indicate that I will vote for Senator Durack's amendment. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R. Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, D. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Powell, J. F. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Giles, P. J. Saunders, N. K. Haines, J. Sibraa, K. W. Jones, G. N. Vigor, D. B. McClelland, Douglas Walsh, P. A. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller) Zakharov, A. O. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Lewis, A. W. R. Colston, M. A. Hill, R. Gietzelt, A. T. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Walters, M. S. Aulich, T. Baume, PeterGrimes, D. J. Reid, M. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 12 to 18-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 19 (Functions of Commission). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.45) —The amendment I was to move to this clause was consequential on debate we have already had on an earlier Bill so I withdraw it. Clause agreed to. Clauses 20 to 26-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 27 (Telecommunications not to be intercepted). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.47) —I move: (3) Page 7, clause 27, paragraph (a), proposed new sub-section 7 (4), leave out `Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years', insert: `Penalty: $25,000 or imprisonment for 5 years'. This amendment is designed to increase the penalty for the communication of information obtained from illegal telephone interceptions. When the Opposition moved this amendment in the other place it received some interest from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who indicated that the Government was giving some thought to increasing the penalties as they have now become a bit outmoded in view of what seems to be a growing amount of unlawful telephone interceptions, if we are to accept the warning given to us by the Director-General of Security when he addressed the National Press Club recently. There is certainly quite a lot of at least anecdotal evidence that there is an increase in unlawful telephone interception. With modern technology it is more easily done now than it used to be, or perhaps it is thought to be more worth while due to the unfortunate general increase in major and organised crime. The existing penalties are rather outmoded. I move this amendment again, in the Senate, in the hope that after the lengthy period that has elapsed since this Bill was passed by the House of Representatives the Government may have something more to tell us about the matter or about its attitude to it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.48) — As much as I would like to be able to help Senator Durack in this respect, I am afraid that I cannot tell him anything more about the state of progress on this matter except that it remains the Government's intention to have a systematic review of these penalty provisions, particularly as they are applicable to telecommunications interception and related areas. For the moment, rather than responding in some ad hoc way to the penalties here scheduled, we would prefer to do it systematically later and perhaps with the benefit of the advice from the committee that is being established, although that is just a further thought. However we will try to give accelerated consideration to this matter because it is understood that in a number of areas, including perhaps this area, some of these penalties are getting a little out of date in terms of the monetary amounts, in particular, that are involved. We will certainly do just that. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.49) —We will not be supporting the amendment moved by the Opposition, although we certainly agree with the comments Senator Durack made in moving his amendment. I hope that the Government's review will not be one of those that we are still looking at after the Bicentennial. It seems to me to be a very important matter. When one runs up against this problem in committee meetings and elsewhere there seems to be very little in terms of a base which one can use to work out the most appropriate penalty for any particular offence. I think that has arisen time and again. For example, it arose with regard to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into Mr Justice Murphy. It arose in regard to the inquiry on parliamentary privilege, of which I was a member, which tried to disentangle the penalties on individuals as distinct from penalties that are due to be levied on corporations. All those matters are important. We are constantly passing legislation through this chamber with penalties attached, and I think what we are doing is increasing rather than decreasing the confusion in that area. I hope that the Government moves as soon as possible to some type of systematisation of penalties across the board so that in future there can be a more rational and reasonable debate in this regard. I do not want it to be taken that the Australian Democrats, in not supporting the amendment, disagree with the points that Senator Durack has raised in moving that amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill 1986 and Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 reported without amendment, and Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1986 reported with amendments; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Consideration of House of Representatives message resumed from 22 August. SCHEDULE OF THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE SENATE TO WHICH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS DISAGREED Page 4, after clause 4, insert the following new clause: Entitlements of members of the Parliament `4a. (1) Determination No. 11 of 1986 of the Remuneration Tribunal dated 6 June 1986 is modified by omitting paragraph 7.1 and substituting the following paragraph: ``7.1 For the purposes of this entitlement, `nominee' means: a parent; a son or daughter other than a dependent child as defined in paragraph 1.19; or a brother or sister of the senator or member, and may in special circumstances include one other person (except a member of the staff of the senator or member) approved at the discretion of the Special Minister of State.''. `(2) The determination of the Remuneration Tribunal referred to in this section as modified by this section has effect as if it were a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal.'. Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to Amendment No. 1 of the Senate The Senate amendment is not acceptable because- Proposals to extend the definition of nominee for overseas study travel purposes have been considered by the Remuneration Tribunal, including in its 1986 Review, and not accepted. It would establish a most undesirable precedent for the Parliament to override a Determination of the independent Tribunal so as to widen an entitlement available to Senators and Members. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Committee does not insist on the amendment of the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.54) —I move: At the end of the motion, add: `, but proposes an alternative amendment to the Bill: ``Page 4, after clause 4, add the following new clause: ``Entitlements of members of the Parliament ``4a. (1) Determination No. 11 of 1986 of the Remuneration Tribunal dated 6 June 1986 is modified- (a) by omitting paragraph 7.1; (b) by omitting from sub-sub-paragraph 7.2 (d) (ii) `, or nominee as defined,'; (c) by omitting from sub-sub-paragraph 7.2 (d) (iii) `, spouse, or nominee as defined,' and substituting `or spouse'; (d) by omitting from sub-paragraph 7.3 (c) `or nominee'; and (e) by omitting from paragraph 7.4 `or nominee'. ``(2) The determination of the Remuneration Tribunal referred to in this section as modified by this section has effect as if it were a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal.''.'. This amendment would remove entitlements provided by paragraph 7.1 of the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. I see no reason to repeat what I have said on previous occasions, and I refer honourable senators to the Hansard of 24 August 1984, pages 324 to 330, which was the first occasion on which I raised this matter, and the Hansard of 20 August 1986, pages 114 to 118, which was the latest occasion. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.55) —I understand that, prior to this debate coming on, the Government indicated its intention to support Senator Harradine's amendment. The Opposition has also changed its view and intends to support Senator Harradine's amendment. That will transpire shortly. That being the case, I move: Proposed new sub-clause 4a (1), leave out paragraph (a) to (e) (inclusive), insert: `by omitting paragraph 7.1, and substituting the following paragraph: ``7.1 For the purposes of this entitlement, `nominee' means: a parent; a son or daughter other than a dependent child as defined in paragraph 1.19; a brother or sister; or other close relative of the Senator or member.''.'. It seems to me that the item on which people have focused, that is, the notion of de factos travelling overseas with members and senators, is the issue on which Senator Harradine's amendment is being supported. I have moved my amendment to seek to avoid the continuing discrimination against a range of other people. I emphasise again, for the sake of the Press and those people who may read this part of the debate, that we are talking about travel outside Australia. We are talking about a procedure whereby the first class air fare which is provided every three years to a member or senator is able to be downgraded at no cost to the revenue to enable a spouse to travel overseas with that member or senator. In other words, we are not talking about adding costs to the revenue; we are talking about the distribution of costs which are already there. So it is not a matter of costs. Quite frankly, it becomes a debate about de facto spouses. The Government seemingly will make clear that it will support Senator Harradine's amendment, as the Opposition is now supporting it. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I seek to try to pick up a range of other people who will be discriminated against because of this move by the Government and the Opposition. Those people include senators and members who are widows and widowers, people who have their grown-up children performing a whole range of functions that those of us who have spouses ask our spouses to perform. I refer to the incessant answering of phones, attending public meetings, dragging them, willing or otherwise, to fetes, and the 101 other things they do in support of our public lives, let alone our private lives. Particularly members and senators who are widows and widowers often have their grown-up children performing those tasks for them. I think it is outrageous that we cannot downgrade air fares to compensate those people in some way, in the same way as we are able to downgrade air fares to compensate spouses. After all, that is what we are talking about. There are situations where members and senators have spouses in which I think it would also be appropriate, for example, in the case of a spouse who is disabled and unable to travel and where a relative, a daughter or a son, performs those types of duties that a spouse would normally perform. Again it seems to me to be utterly outrageous and an added imposition on those senators and members who have disabled spouses that they should be further disadvantaged by this procedure, which is being entered into in a shabby operation by the Government, in collusion with the Opposition. In those circumstances it seems to me that the eldest child, a brother or a sister, or in many cases a parent, who performs that range of public duties, ought to be able to undertake that travel. We left the following item out of our amendment because we did not think we could get Government or Opposition support. I hope the Government and the Opposition will support the proposal I have moved. I raised the matter of staff on a previous occasion, as I raised the other matter on a previous occasion. Talking frankly, the reason people say they do not want staff included in the travel provision is the notion that a senator or member may be having sexual intercourse with a member of that parliamenta-rian's staff. That is the reason we are looking at the exclusion of a provision for staff; let us have it frankly on the record. The point I want to make about this exercise is that it may very well be much more appropriate, in the public good, for a parliamentarian to take a member of staff than to take his or her spouse on an overseas trip. As a personal example, I went overseas a couple of years ago. A member of my staff paid privately to accompany me. That member of staff performed duties admirably. In the eight days I was overseas I was able to do far more because the member of staff was there to make arrangements, to do follow-up work, to get material and do a whole host of other things. Ha-ving that staff member with me probably quadrupled the amount of work I was able to do on that trip. Of course, that is the reason why Prime Ministers and Ministers on occasions take staff overseas-to assist them in the duties they are asked to perform on behalf of the community. We have reached an absurd situation because of an obsession with the private life of members of parliament. We are probably cutting off our nose to spite our face by engaging in an activity which will possibly make our task less efficient and less beneficial for the community. I return to the points that I raised with regard to this matter. It seems reasonable that the people detailed under the definition of `nominee' ought to be acceptable to the Government and to the Opposition. The Opposition has again changed its mind although, quite rightly, it previously moved such an amendment. Never knowing what it is that it believes in, it has now changed its mind and will vote for the very amendment it opposed last time the issue arose. It may assist the Opposition if I read a letter from Women Who Want to be Women. The letter is written to Senator Haines and reads: Dear Madam, We request you support Senator Harradine's amendment to the Remuneration and Allowances Alteration Bill 1986. Senator Harradine undoubtedly would agree that the letter starts off well. It continues: Whilst we agree any parliamentarian should be entitled to take their spouse, parent, sibling, children or any bona fide employee overseas, we object to MPs taking their de facto or mistress at the taxpayers expense. Women Who Want to be Women get down to the nitty-gritty-it is who is having sexual intercourse with whom that it is interested in and that is all. That is what we are talking about. The letter continues: Furthermore, we believe all MPs should set an example to all Australian citizens in upholding traditional attitudes towards marriage and the family. Senator Haines, in response, said: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Remuneration and Allowances Alteration Bill 1986. Most parliamentarians agree with you- when the vote is taken we will see whether most parliamentarians agree- that they ``should be allowed to take their spouse, parent, sibling children or any bona fide employee overseas''. Unfortunately, the effect of Senator Harradine's amendment was to preclude a parliamentarian from taking- such people- . . . overseas. The amendment passed by the Senate to change the Government's legislation from ``spouse or de facto'' to ``spouse or nominee'', however, would have covered the people that you mentioned. I believe that the amendment moved by Senator Harradine to which I have moved an amendment discriminates against parliamentarians who are widows or widowers and parliamentarians who have a disabled spouse. It is not appropriate that that should be allowed to occur. In many circumstances the spouses of parliamentarians may have other bona fide reasons why they are unable to accompany their spouses. It may be that they are a member of parliament or engaged in a reserve occupation such as in the armed forces. In other words, we are seeking to set up a whole range of discriminations by the action on which the Government and the Opposition are about to embark. Senator Harradine —Have you raised it with the Tribunal? Senator MACKLIN —I raised this the last time this matter was considered. Senator Harradine —Put it to the Tribunal. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Harradine has moved an amendment to alter the operation of the Tribunal. We should not discriminate against the people I mentioned. The amendment I have circulated would allow this. I intend to put my amendment to the vote. I hope that honourable senators will not pursue continuing discrimination against widows, widowers, children and people who are disadvantaged because of their public duty. We should not embark on the odd exercise proposed. The CHAIRMAN —The original question was that the Committee not insist upon its amendment, to which Senator Harradine has proposed that certain words be added at the end. Senator Macklin has moved for the deletion of certain words from Senator Harradine's amendment with a view to inserting other words. The question before the Committee is that the words proposed to be left out of Senator Harradine's amendment by Senator Macklin's amendment be left out. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.07) —Mr Chairman, I am glad you are in the chair and not I in the light of that explanation. My views on this matter I think are well known. Senator Harradine, for all the reasons that he has expressed in the past, wishes to remove from the entitlement of a parliamentarian the right to be accompanied overseas by a de facto spouse, as it is known, or `somebody who has established a bona fide domestic relationship', to use the words of the Remuneration Tribunal. My personal view is clear: I think that is wrong. It is unfair of us to do that. I do not think we should be in the position of making judgments about people. I have given my reasons here many times. I see no reason why we as parliamentarians should consider respectable a long-standing marriage in which one spouse or other physically or psychologically abuses the other and yet ignore a long-standing loving, respecting relationship which, for reasons that the people are involved in, has not been sanctified in a church or made orderly in a registry office or by a marriage celebrant, but I will not go into that further. What Senator Macklin wants now to do, I think under the guise of being anti-discriminatory, is to include in the overseas travel conditions for parliamentarians their being allowed to be accompanied by parents, sons or daughters other than dependent children, brothers or sisters and other close relatives, as is allowed for domestic travel. By adding his amendment to Senator Harradine's amendment I assume he also wants to discriminate against the de facto. Apparently nobody in this place except me is prepared to get up to defend the poor old de facto spouse or disabled spouse. Senator Haines —We are voting against it. Senator GRIMES —Wait a minute; just hold on. We have a situation here where the Government, in difficult economic circumstances- Senator Haines —It is in an anti-fornication mode; that is the trouble. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator is probably right. The Government, in difficult economic circumstances, does not wish to extend the allowances in this way. Senator Haines —It is not costing any more. Senator GRIMES —Hang on; good Senator, do not be so impatient. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) informs me that, in fact, it would extend the cost; that parliamentarians at the moment who are widowed, single, et cetera, frequently change their nominee from one parent to another or to sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and other close relatives, and that they will do this for overseas travel. Whereas most parliamentarians do not take up their full overseas travel entitlements, it is anticipated that under these circumstances they would, which would therefore increase the cost to the exchequer. That is the Government's view and that is why the Government is opposing this. Senator Macklin —Because you can take your mother, you are going to go overseas now; is that right? Senator GRIMES —No; it is because if one can take one's mother, daughter or son overseas, one is likely to do so. That is exactly what it is about. I find the letter from Women Who Want to be Women typical of their approach. They are perfectly happy for us to take-- Senator Harradine —And not very helpful to my amendment. Senator GRIMES —They are not very helpful to Senator Harradine. They are perfectly happy for a member of parliament to take overseas his wife whom he belts every Friday night when he goes home full. They are perfectly happy for him to take non-dependent children who may be earning big money and who may be the directors of firms, et cetera, brothers and sisters in the same circumstances, or other close relatives, for heaven's sake-whatever that means. But they will not let him take someone with whom he has been living in a bona fide stable, loving, domestic relationship for years. At least Senator Harradine is honest. He has said: `I want to be a moral judge. I want to make a moral judgment about these people and I want to exclude them'. Senator Harradine —You do too. Senator GRIMES —No, I do not. Senator Harradine —You know that is not true. Senator GRIMES —No, that is true. That is exactly what it is about. We have a situation in which we have all been getting $400 a month extra- Senator Harradine —No, $444. Senator GRIMES —It is $444. Senator Harradine has worked it out. We have told the people of this community that we are not going to accept that. The legislation has to go through and, quite frankly, I would rather it go through- Senator Haines —Senator Harradine now thinks we should scrap the whole Bill and there is a lot of support in the chamber for that. Senator GRIMES —If Senator Harradine wants to scrap the whole Bill, I will certainly do that. I can certainly guarantee that I will get support from this side of the chamber. I would be the first to concede that what we are doing here by not opposing Senator Harradine's amendment is intruding into the bedrooms of members of parliament in a way that we would not be willing to intrude on our electors, but I have to get this legislation through. The practicality of it is that Senator Harradine may think he has had a triumph, but I think people will find ways of getting over that triumph in the future. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.14) —I was not going to speak at length, but Senator Macklin has accused me of discriminating against some people and Senator Grimes has accused me of making moral judgments. Let me just say what the effect of the proposal is. We are talking about section 7 (1) of the Remuneration Tribunal's 1986 review. The effect of my amendment is to remove entitlements for members of parliament to take de facto partners overseas by converting part of their overseas travel allowance. The provision in 7 (1) states: For the purposes of this entitlement, `nominee' means a person with whom the senator or member has established a bona fide, stable domestic relationship. I defy anyone around here to say that I am being judgmental. What I am trying to do is take out a provision which is inherently judgmental. Senator Grimes —Fair go! Senator HARRADINE —Be serious. The provision says: . . . `nominee' means a person with whom the senator or member has established a bona fide- I wonder who is going to decide that- stable- somebody has to make a judgment about that- domestic relationship. All I say is that we should just stick to the legally married; we need not make a judgment about whether or not they are happily married. One does not have to make that judgment. One just simply sticks to the law. Who is being judgmental? I am certainly not being judgmental. I am simply stating that pursuant to the law, for example, an authorised marriage celebrant must give to persons intending marriage a document which says that Parliament places great stress on the importance of marriage and the family-and so we do. We should bear in mind that the Tribunal's action, the Government having placed a submission before it, publicly demeans the institution of marriage. It strikes at the legislative recognition of marriage and flies in the face of the responsibility of parliamentarians to uphold the principles underpinning the laws that they pass through Parliament. All my provision does is correct that. As far as Senator Macklin's proposition is concerned, I am not discriminating against anybody. Those persons mentioned in his amendment do not at present have any entitlement at all. Senator Haines —They would have under the nominee scheme. Senator HARRADINE —I know they would, but the point is-- Senator Macklin —Which is what this chamber passed last time. Senator HARRADINE —I just point out to the honourable senator that the reason the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) gave the last time he rejected that amendment was that it would establish a most undesirable precedent for the Parliament to override a determination of the independent Tribunal. Senator Haines —The rest of the Bill is-- Senator HARRADINE —I know it is. I am going to go further than Senator Haines. Since 1974 more than half of the Tribunal's determinations relating to members of parliament have been overturned in some respect by the Parliament. In fairness, the point should be made that only one of the determinations of the Tribunal in respect of public office holders has been amended or overturned since that time. The point that Mr Young had been trying to get across is not that the amendment would override a determination but that it would provide a benefit for members of parliament. I think he had an argument there. We have set up a Tribunal which advertises for submissions. I asked by interjection whether Senator Macklin or any of the Democrats had put forward this proposal about entitlement for a senator or member who is a widow or a widower or who has a disabled spouse to take some other relative overseas with him or her. There is a fair bit of merit in that but one has to go about these things in accordance with the protocol of the provision. We have set up the Remuneration Tribunal and the Democrats are proposing that this matter not be submitted to it. If they want to go to the Tribunal with that submission, that is fair enough. It is then up to us to overturn the Tribunal's determination. If the Democrats wish to pursue what they are trying to pursue here, let them do so through the correct channels. The determination for this financial year is being considered. Let them make a submission along the lines they have outlined and let us do what we want to do with it when the Tribunal has made a determination. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.21) —The proposition which Senator Harradine puts is not acceptable. We were not the people who started this little jaunt of changing the Remuneration Tribunal's determination; the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) started that little exercise and Senator Harradine joined in with enthusiasm with his little amendment and took it even further. It so happens that the seven Australian Democrats-we are able to contact our members quicker than other parties are-all have spouses to take overseas. So we do not happen to have a vested interest in this amendment whatsoever. The only people who would be able to take advantage of our amendment if it were successful happen to be in the other political parties. I reiterate the point that I have already made. Now that this whole operation has been opened up it seems that we are about to commit a further, quite deliberate, discrimination because we have the opportunity of doing otherwise. I would like to respond to one point the Minister put forward-I do not think he believed it-on behalf of the Government about costs. The liability of the Government would not be increased-whether the actual expenditure is increased is a matter of conjecture-if this proposed amendment were passed. It cannot be increased. I hope that in the whole of the debate somebody in the media will finally get that message. We are not talking about carting all and sundry overseas at added expense to the taxpayers in terms of their liability. A member can proceed overseas only on study leave. In other words he can proceed overseas only if he is undertaking study for his constituency or his political work. It is unlikely-and indeed I would have thought it a disgraceful proposition for the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to put-that members and senators would jaunt overseas. That is what he has to be maintaining. It is disgraceful for the Special Minister of State to be making such allegations against members and senators. Members and senators proceeding overseas must seek the acquiescence of the Special Minister of State to their study leave plans. He is the person who approves those plans-- Senator Grimes —He will go through yours next time. Senator MACKLIN —He has already approved them-and whether the spouse of the member is travelling with him is not relevant to those plans. In fact it is entirely irrelevant to those plans, as the Minister well knows. Study overseas stands and falls on whether it is a legitimate exercise in terms of the study leave proposals which are laid down in quite some detail. I think the arguments put forward are specious. However, I accept the Minister's last argument that he has to get the Bill passed. Simply, we are being paid and if the Bill is not passed soon we will not even get anything in our next salary: next month we will have to pay back money. I accept that argument the Minister advanced but I reject all his other arguments. I believe we can proceed with the amendment I moved to Senator Harradine's amendment without increasing in any way liability to the taxpayer. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.25) —Senator Macklin's oratory has not convinced me. I will refer to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) Senator Macklin's concern about the apparent attitude of the Special Minister of State, who may be interpreted as suggesting that some parliamentarians go overseas and jaunt. I agree that that is an outrageous proposition and I shall not put that up. I make a passing comment about Senator Harradine. I suggested to Senator Harradine that he was making a moral judgment because he had decided that people who had bits of paper were better than people who did not. I find it extraordinary that he said that he is not making a moral judgment; he is stopping us from making a moral judgment because people have to judge what is a bona fide domestic relationship. If he takes that view I suggest that he argue that we remove a similar provision from the Social Security legislation, the Public Service legislation and the tax legislation. Apparently he is perfectly happy about making a moral judgment in those areas but he is not happy about making it in relation to the poor old parliamentarians. I do not know what the Australian Democrats have against sex. They seem to have a real problem because apparently it is all right, according to their amendment, to take people overseas if they are one's parents, sons or daughters, brothers or sisters or close relatives, but if they cohabit-to use the vernacular-and therefore are apparently indulging in that sort of behaviour they will be excluded. I think that is a bit unfair; it is discriminating against such people. This is a reflection of the sort of nonsense that goes on here sometimes, and I am the first to admit that it is nonsense. We are making a judgment that the whole of Australia shares Senator Harradine's views about human behaviour. The reason the Government is not opposing his amendment is the reason I gave earlier-we have to get the legislation passed. I hope that between now and the next time this matter comes up people will get together and accept that it is 1986, that people's relationships differ and that people's views on things differ. Senator Harradine is winning this time not because he has the numbers but because of the special circumstances and because politicians in this country, unfortunately, are influenced more by colourful and spectacular headlines and the sorts of letters they get from Women Who Want to be Women than facts and good sense. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(12.28) —I attempt to be a logical, rational human being. Some may take exception to this remark but I attempt to achieve these aims. Senator Puplick —We all accept that you attempt to be. Senator SANDERS —Thank you, Senator. It would seem to me, having sat here listening intently to the various arguments, that what is needed is a modicum of common sense. Senator Haines —In here? Senator SANDERS —In here. What we are talking about, as I understand it and I am sure someone will tell me if I do not understand it correctly, is the first class air fares which politicians get when they go overseas on their study tours or parliamentary delegations. These first class fares allow the politician to ride in quite a bit of luxury, in the upper deck of a Boeing 747 or wherever. However, what we are talking about is the politician exercising a prerogative to ride in economy class, at no extra expense to the Government, and to use the remainder of the fare for another person. This does not involve the Government in any way and in my case I think it has saved the Government money. Recently I went overseas on a parliamentary delegation. I took my duly wedded wife with no argument whatsoever from anyone. Our two economy class fares were actually cheaper than the first class fare. I ask someone to explain to me-I suppose it is up to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) to explain it, if he would only listen to my pleas-why it is not possible for this paragraph of the Bill simply to use the word `nominee'. Why is this not possible? The Democrats would support the inclusion of the word `nominee'. The Government has the numbers. Why cannot the paragraph simply read `nominee' and avoid all the rhetoric-- Senator Haines —And the judgments. Senator SANDERS —And the judgmental comments which have poured forth on this subject. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.31) —If one inserts the word `nominee', the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) will have to make a judgment about what that term means and who is acceptable as a nominee. He does not want to do that-he told me so last night-because he does not want to be attacked, as he has been attacked, by people who abuse the Freedom of Information Act to try to find out about the private lives of politicians for political use. That is why he does not want to be put in that situation. I think the problem is easily solved by accepting what everyone else in this community accepts-that some people are married in one sense and some people are married in another sense. In all other legislation we have no problem about bona fide domestic relationships, but in this legislation Senator Harradine suddenly decides it is a wrong judgment to make. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Macklin's amendment to Senator Harradine's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Sanders, N. K. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Newman, J. M. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Durack, P. D. Ryan, S. M. Elstob. R. C. Sheil, G. Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Harradine's amendment) be added. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Newman, J. M. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Cooney, B. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Grimes, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Sanders, N. K. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —by leave-I regret to inform the Senate that Senator Button and Senator Gietzelt will both be absent from the chamber during Question Time today. Any questions normally directed to either of those honourable senators should be directed to me. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, who I know lately has been in happier places than Australia for any Minister in the Hawke Government. Is he aware that the Australian Mining Industry Council has revised its estimate of the cost to miners of the fringe benefits tax and upgraded it to $70m? Is the Minister aware also that the great bulk, if not the whole, of this amount is calculated from concessions offered to attract people to remote areas, and certainly not from the Prime Minister's favourite example of rorts and ramps in the city offices of mining companies? Was this huge increased impost on the mining industry an intended or unintended consequence of the fringe benefits tax? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the impact on this industry will be fully taken into account in the review of that tax, which has now been announced by the Prime Minister? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of AMIC's latest representations on this matter. In fact I saw a delegation from AMIC the day before I left for overseas a fortnight ago, from which that material was conveyed to me. The Government has, I know, over that period been examining the AMIC figures to see to what extent they do stand up to close scrutiny. The claim is, as Senator Durack indicated, that the cost of the fringe benefits tax for remote areas will be of the order of $70m in relation to the housing aspect and the vacation air fares, together with some lesser matters such as air-conditioning and so on. If the figure is indeed $70m, I suppose that would, as to magnitude anyway, rank as an unintended consequence. But it very much remains to be seen whether the figures will come out as they are claimed to be by the mining industry. If after closer analysis they do come out that way, that is something that the Government would, I hope, be looking at as part of the indicated administrative revision or review of the fringe benefits tax. Senator DURACK —I thank the Minister for that answer, but I wish to ask him a supplementary question. Does his answer mean that there is another review which in fact was initiated by the Government prior to the announcement made by the Prime Minister the other day, or is this going to be part of the review of the whole of the unintended consequences, so-called, which was announced this week while he was away? Senator GARETH EVANS —No earlier review has been set in train. It is simply a matter of the Government responding sensitively and intelligently, as it always does, to representations that are made to it by the interest groups that we serve. If claims are made and put forward in seriousness by a body as distinguished as the Australian Mining Industry Council, of course the Government will take those claims seriously and scrutinise them very minutely. Senator COOK —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the Weekend Australian quoting the Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr John Elliott, as saying: When the next conservative government gets in I can tell you that the dollar is going to jump but we are probably not going to win an election by saying that. What effect would a jump in the value of the dollar have on primary industry in this country? Having regard to the New Right industrial relations policies of the Opposition, is the jumping dollar scenario plausible? Senator WALSH —In regard to the last part of the question, I think the inference which can be drawn from Senator Cook's question is, quite correctly, that the industrial relations policy which the ratbag Right is foisting on the Liberal Party is a policy which will lead to massive industrial disputation and a dollar which is more likely to fall than to rise. For the purposes of my answer to the first part of the question I will take at face value and accept as correct Mr Elliott's statement that the dollar is going to jump under the next conservative government. I have been asked what the effect of that would be on primary industry. For every percentage increase in the exchange rate farmers' returns would be reduced by about $100m. Therefore, if the exchange rate moved from its present level of $US0.63, or thereabouts, to just over $US0.70, say, farmers' returns would fall by $700m. That, of course, comes straight off net income as well as gross income, so farmers' net incomes would be reduced by some $700m. If Mr Elliott is asserting that the exchange rate, relative to the United States dollar, would return to the level it was at 18 or 20 months ago, it would rise about 30 per cent, which would be just over 20 points as against the United States dollar. That would wipe $2 billion off both gross and net farm income. The consequences of that, of course, would be catastrophic, particularly if that were superimposed on the present depressed price period through which agriculture is moving. If a future coalition government were to take the same measures that a previous coalition government took-that is, maintain by a series of artificial devices an overvalued Australian dollar as a substitute for an effective wages policy-the exchange rate might well appreciate. The effects of that sort of policy, of course, would be not only to cause enormous damage to the agricultural sector but also to erode further the international competitiveness of the Australian manufacturing sector. In other words, there would be a rerun of the damage inflicted on the economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s by John Howard, as Treasurer, through maintaining quite deliberately, with artificial support, an overvalued exchange rate as a substitute for an effective wages policy. No matter what mechanism the Liberal Party believes that it would use to force the exchange rate up, I am sure that the people who mistakenly vote for a National Party politician ought to be absolutely terrified at the prospect of that Party getting back into a coalition government with the Liberals led by Mr Howard and directed by Mr Hay, Mr Elliott and so on. Senator MESSNER —Can the Minister representing the Treasurer advise the Senate of the approximate total cost of producing and direct mailing nearly half a million booklets entitled `Fringe Benefits Tax-A Guide for Employers' to employers across the country? In view of the Government's decision to review the scope of the fringe benefits tax, does the Minister agree that the booklets are now of limited use and the funds spent in compiling and mailing them have been largely wasted? Is the Government examining a proposal to spend $2m on an advertising campaign to promote and explain the fringe benefits tax? Will the Minister ensure that no decision is taken to waste more public money on such a dubious campaign, primarily designed to reduce the potential damage caused by the tax before the final form of the tax is decided on? Senator WALSH —Senator Messner referred to an alleged decision to reduce the scope of the tax. I think they were the words he used. I am not sure that I could endorse that as being an accurate statement, but I will let that pass. I cannot remember-although I think it came out in the Estimates committees hearing-the cost of mailing the half million booklets. Again I cannot remember off the top of my head the amount of money, but there is an appropriation-whether it is specifically identified as an appropriation I am not sure-for public information on the tax reform package. I will get the details of that from the Treasurer. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question. The point I am trying to draw to the Minister's attention is the fact that the tax is now subject to review. Consequently, any public information campaign must be of dubious value until the final form of the tax is decided. Is the Government doing anything to hold up the public information campaign until that occurs? Senator WALSH —In that very short period- which is now just over a fortnight-before the modifications, if any, are decided upon and announced, I take it for granted that no material will be mailed out. In a bit over two weeks time the Government's decisions will be known. Everybody who is interested will then be told, either informally through the media or formally by the Australian Taxation Office through the distribution of the material. On the other hand, we will have to wait 18 months to find out what the Opposition is going to do about the termination of the practice Mr Hunt had the honesty to remember-tax evasion. Various people, of course, in unguarded moments and in outbreaks of honesty, have been telling us that the Opposition will enforce section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Government's judgment is that section 26 (e) is not enforceable. If the Opposition really attempts to enforce it, several things will happen. First, the work load thrust upon employers will be vastly greater than the fringe benefits tax work load thrust upon the employers. Secondly, if the Opposition believes that section 26 (e) is enforceable it should go back over many years and make taxpayers pay the tax which has been evaded. I use that word in its legalistic sense because any income not declared, if the Opposition believes 26 (e) can be enforced, represents tax evasion-not tax avoidance, but evasion. If the Opposition is going to activate 26 (e)-and Senator Messner believes that it can be enforced-it will be legally and morally obliged to go back many years and collect that money years after the tax was evaded. No wonder the Opposition refuses to tell the public what it is going to do, because to have any credibility at all that is what it has to do. That is why it does not have the courage to tell the public for the next 12 or 18 months, or however long it will be, just what it is going to do. It is very wise, of course, in not coming clean with the public and telling the public what it intends to do, because the public will be horrified when it finds out. Senator COATES —Is the Minister for Resources and energy aware that the price of petrol in Tasmania is 10c to 15c more per litre than in the mainland States? Has the Minister seen the assertion of the Premier, Mr Gray, that the relatively high cost of petrol in Tasmania is due to the Federal tax on petrol as well as a lack of competition? Given that Tasmanians pay the highest State tax in Australia for their petrol, is it not this State tax which accounts for Tasmania's comparatively exorbitant petrol prices? Is there any accuracy in Mr Gray's claim that the Commonwealth is responsible? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen a Press report of the assertions of the Tasmanian Premier. As so often is the case, they are grossly misleading. It is simply not correct to say that the high price of petrol in Australia is a product of Federal taxation. Let me explain why. For a start, the Premier's figures are totally in error. It is simply not correct to say that the Commonwealth taxes on petrol total 33c per litre. The Commonwealth excise-that is the product excise-on petrol is currently 20.185c per litre and is about to fall to 19.7c per litre. Even if one is to take account, in addition to the product excise, of the Commonwealth's excise on crude oil produced here in Australia, which translates approximately to 7c per litre, the total Commonwealth tax on petrol is only 27c per litre, not 33c per litre as was claimed. The primary cause for the difference between the situations in Tasmania and elsewhere is the actions which have been taken by the Tasmanian Government itself. On 1 August the Tasmanian Government increased the State franchise fee on petrol by almost 140 per cent, from 3.15c per litre to 7.52c per litre. This is the highest State tax on petrol. It is the highest tax which exists anywhere in the country. In New South Wales it is 3.53c, in Victoria it is 3.98c, in Western Australia it is 4.52c, in South Australia it is 2.51c, and in Tasmania it is 7.52c. Senator Sheil —What is it in Queensland? Senator GARETH EVANS —In Queensland it is zero, because of the total irresponsibility with which the Queensland Government has been using other forms of tax revenue in order to win cheap, crude and vulgar political popularity, including in particular, of course, the rail charges that it imposes on the mining industry to the great detriment of the mining industry in that State and of the national interest as a whole. As for Tasmania, it is supremely obvious that we have a government there which is taxing its constituents into the ground as far as petrol is concerned. The further point I make regarding the differential in retail prices is that the Prices Surveillance Authority's current maximum endorsed wholesale price, which excludes State franchise fees, for Hobart is actually slightly below the maximum wholesale endorsed price for Sydney and Melbourne. So it is the inclusion of the State Government franchise fee which obviously causes that petrol price difference at the wholesale level. It has to be said that, attributable to the wholesale price differential, there is a further difference between Tasmanian and mainland prices compounded by the existence of discounting on the mainland, or at least in situations of major metropolitan aggregation where there are high volume outlets and especially, further, where that occurs near sources of bulk supplies such as refineries. There are, of course, no refineries in Tasmania, so that is a further reason, but the basic one, I repeat, as Senator Coates so clearly pointed out, is the effect of State imposts. Senator HAINES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the report in today's Australian indicating that various bureaucrats in various government departments will have access to the proposed National Births, Deaths and Marriages Register, thereby giving them access to such intimate personal details about individuals as information regarding adoption, legitimation and acknowledgment of paternity? Can the Minister confirm that this sort of information about people will be made available to such officers as senior members of the departments responsible for foreign affairs, taxation and social security as well as the Australian Statistician and the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission? In view of the potential for gross invasion of privacy inherent in this proposal, will the Minister assure the Senate that privacy legislation to protect against possible infringements will be introduced at the same time as the legislation relating to the Australia Card is introduced and that it will operate irrespective of the fate of the Australia Card? Senator GRIMES —I am sorry; I did not see the report in the Australian this morning. Therefore, I do not know any details about it, nor have I been briefed on the matter. I will refer the matters raised by Senator Haines to the Minister for Health. It is my understanding that the privacy legislation will be introduced at the same time. As for the other details, I will have to obtain them from the Minister I represent. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. In the light of the decision by Peko-Wallsend Ltd to begin uranium exploration in Kakadu National Park, and noting the recent uncertainty surrounding the survival of the park, will the Minister give some assurance to the people of Australia and the Aboriginal communities in the area that their interests will be protected? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am a little puzzled by Senator Childs's reference to recent uncertainty surrounding the survival of Kakadu National Park because this Government has made it absolutely and unequivocally clear that it is committed not only to the survival of the park but also to the maintenance of its integrity, as is appropriate given its status as not only one of Australia's but one of the world's great environmental treasures. I am very happy to give an assurance, which I think the Prime Minister will be in the process of giving about now in the other House, that there will be no mining of any sort in the areas comprising stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park under the Hawke Labor Government. That is something we made perfectly clear in the joint statement of Mr Cohen and me some weeks ago. It is something I now make absolutely clear again on behalf of this Government. So far as the report of Geopeko's exploration activities are concerned, the situation is this: Under the national parks legislation it is the case that pre-existing mineral interests are preserved. So Geopeko is entitled as a matter of law to explore in the area of its existing leases. If, as media reports indicate, Geopeko is exploring outside the area of its pre-existing mineral leases and simply in areas where it has lodged applications of one kind or another, the Government will seek to prevent that activity through the courts. As the Peko company has been advised on previous occasions, the Government does not accept that the mere application for a leasehold interest carries in itself any right to explore or to mine. To come back to the existing leases for the sake of clarifying the situation, while the Government cannot prevent further exploration occurring on those existing leases, it will take every step within its power to ensure that no mining of any kind takes place within the existing Kakadu National Park. Peko-Wallsend has 14 mineral leases in the stage 2 area totalling around 550 acres, but in five separate areas. My information is that these leases, small and scattered as they are, simply do not provide a sufficient area to establish a mine, even if high grade ore should be located. The Commonwealth Government simply will not grant any additional leasehold interest such as to create an area of viability for mining purposes. I make the further point that, given that the existing leases are located not only in an area of obviously great natural beauty but also principally in sensitive wetlands subject to seasonal flooding, it is almost inconceivable that any proposal for mining activity could be consistent with the stringent environmental standards that the Australian Government is obliged to apply to World Heritage List areas, as these areas are. So there should be no misunderstanding whatsoever on the part of the mining company, or anybody else, as it embarks on new exploration. The Government simply will not countenance any mining activity in the existing Kakadu National Park. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Given that there is currently a limit on the number of merino rams allowed to be exported, would the Minister outline the Government's views of the meatworkers union's intention to export merino rams and merino semen as a commercial operation, despite such enterprises not being in the long term interests of the Australian wool industry? Senator WALSH —The assertion that the export of merino rams would not be in the interests of the Australian wool industry presumably is backed by no evidence. The critical factor in determining the correctness of that assertion is whether the Australian merino has any genetic superiority over merinos from other countries. Nobody knows whether or not that is true. If honourable senators were more interested in the subject, I could talk at some length about it. I could go back to a bit of history in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the coalition Government was in office and backed one of the shonkiest propaganda campaigns that has ever been devised by a government. The Government of that time made the same assertion as Senator Watson has made, which is that Australian merinos have genetic superiority over merinos in other countries and that, therefore, the availability of Australian merinos would increase the world supply of fine merino wool. That may or may not have been true, nobody actually knows. The shonky conclusion made was that because of the increase in the supply of wool, the price of wool would rise. Just in case anybody thinks that I am confused, it was asserted by the Australian Wool Board and endorsed by the red-necked government of the day that an increase in the supply of merino wool would cause the price of wool to rise. As to an alleged scheme of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which I suppose is the union to which Senator Watson is referring, I do not know what that proposition is. However, I will seek a response from the Minister. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Community Services aware that many rumours have been circulating in north Queensland concerning the decentralisation of rehabilitation services? Can the Minister advise whether the Townsville rehabilitation centre will be retained, whether the services presently provided by the centre will be fully maintained and how the proposed reorganisation will affect the community? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of articles in the Townsville Press, and I recently read an editorial in the Townsville Press, making assertions about what would happen to the rehabilitation centre in Townsville. Certainly the rehabilitation centre will be retained. The building is new and is useful for the purpose it serves, unlike many of the other rehabilitation centres throughout Australia which are inappropriately located and inappropriate for the sorts of services which the Government intends the Commonwealth rehabilitation service to provide. There will be a regionalisation of services, however. In north Queensland we will extend the network of rehabilitation teams from those that exist in Cairns and other areas to ensure that services are provided where the people are, rather than trying to drag people into existing services. In that reorganisation there will be some moving around of the professionals in the rehabilitation service to ensure that those services are accessible to the people they are meant to be for, but the Townsville centre will be retained. Over the last three years the Townsville centre has been to the forefront in reorganising its activities. It has developed rehabilitation teams which are more appropriate to developing programs suited to individual clients, it has overcome some of the artificial structures which inhibited efficient rehabilitation in the past and in many ways it has been more advanced in progress in this area than most other centres in Australia. In doing that, already many of the changes we propose have been made in Townsville and we now anticipate that they will occur in other centres. The campaign that has been run in the Townsville media probably stems from some people who in the past have not wanted to see change and who resent the change that has occurred. The editorial I read seemed to be an attack on the local member, Mr Lindsay, which is completely unjustified. I can assure honourable senators that he has done nothing-- Senator MacGibbon —He has done nothing at all; that is right. Senator GRIMES —At least Mr Lindsay is known and is an advocate and a representative of the people who elected him, unlike the honourable senator who interjected, who is largely an advocate and a representative of a foreign power. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Grimes to withdraw the imputation in his answer in regard to Senator MacGibbon. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw if the good senator finds it offensive. I can understand that he might find Mr Lindsay's attitude to his remarks offensive. It is just that he can dish it out and not take it. Senator Michael Baume —Lindsay will get rolled at the next election anyway. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister was asked to withdraw by the Chair, not by Senator MacGibbon. Senator GRIMES —We had better not enter into Senator Michael Baume's past in this place as we might not get through Question Time. However, the attack in the Townsville Bulletin was unfair to Mr Lindsay who, with Senator Reynolds, has been an advocate of the retention of the Townsville rehabilitation centre and the maintenance of the services there. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I recognise that my question affects men as well as women but I hope that she will be able to answer it. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that single and divorced service men and women have no entitlement to full removals at government expense on reposting. Is this not a case of discrimination on the grounds of marital status and thus a contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and/or the Public Service Reform Act 1984? What action is the Government taking to rectify the situation? Senator RYAN —I am not aware whether the `facts' referred to in Senator Newman's question are facts. I will have those matters checked and seek advice so that the question can be answered. Senator TATE —The Minister representing the Minister for Health will be aware of the tabling of the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 entitled `Human Embryo Experimentation in Australia'. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether this report will receive timely consideration by the Government in order to enable a response to the Senate by the autumn session next year? Will the Government take into account the remarkable and encouraging fact that the report is totally consistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg only a week or so ago? I ask the Government also to bear in mind the salutary words of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at the Harvard 350th commemoration ceremony a month or so ago when he said that to avert disaster not only do we need to educate people to make things but we also need to produce people who have complete moral control over the things they make. Senator GRIMES —I am aware of the tabling of the report. I could hardly be otherwise with Senator Tate as Chairman and chief publicity officer of that Committee. It is the policy of the Government to respond to all reports within a three-month period and that commitment will be honoured in this case. Advice will be provided to the Government by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health is aware of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held in September, and he has referred these recommendations to the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council for consideration at its next meeting. The Medical Research Ethics Committee has also undertaken to provide expert comment on the human embryo experimentation report and this advice will be with the Council of the NHMRC in November. Republican that I am, I will convey the salutary words of the Prince of Wales to all my ministerial colleagues. I note that the Senate Select Committee must have been well aware of the remarks of the good Prince as both the majority and the dissenting reports rejected the passage of the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1984. Senator REID —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. On 24 September, in answer to a question by Senator Giles, the Minister referred to the people of Canberra as `self-indulgent, selfish and egocentric people who live in this Territory and have been sponging off the taxpayers for 20 years'. Given his Government's announcement to reverse its Budget decision to increase the interest rates for certain Commonwealth mortgages, can the people of Canberra expect an apology from the Minister for that outburst? Senator WALSH —In answer to one half of the honourable senator's question, a decision was made to obtain savings which had been sought in another matter. In answer to the other half of the question, I see no reason to revise my opinion about the citizens of this Territory. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in Wednesday's Canberra Times entitled `Big farmers group advises its members not to pay tax'? If so, can the Minister advise what the consequences would be for those people who accept this advice and do not pay the fringe benefits tax? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article referred to. Assuming that there was a tax liability, the consequences of not paying the tax, as Mr Kerin pointed out, could be imprisonment and would certainly be a heavy financial penalty. Mr Kerin also pointed out that the call was rather cunningly worded. It called upon members not to pay the tax by one means or another. Of course, one means by which anybody who had a previous fringe benefits tax liability could avoid paying the tax would be to cash out the benefit and thereby remove the liability. Under those circumstances there would be no liability and, therefore, no penalty. I find one thing alarming about this sort of campaign, which was organised in this case by the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales. It has long distressed me that farmers can be so readily enlisted as foot soldiers in political campaigns over issues which are of either little or no consequence to them or, on some occasions, actually to their disadvantage. I cite as one example the long agitation for the establishment of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia to make soft loans. Anybody who looks at the graphs tracing movements in land prices will see that immediately after the Bank opened for business in 1979 the price of land started climbing and it continued to climb until 1984 or thereabouts. The same can be said of the campaign against a capital gains tax, including the type of capital gains tax which this Government has introduced, that is, one which is applied only on real gains. It was very easy for political propagandists serving their own interests to enlist farmers in a campaign against a capital gains tax of that type. The reality is that over a long period the real price of agricultural land has moved little, if at all, and therefore a capital gains tax levied on real gains would have little, if any, relevance. However, through that same period when soft loans from PIBA were helping to inflate land prices to unsustainable levels, farmers continued to buy land at excessive prices in the expectation of receiving untaxed capital gains. In other words, those two elements combined played the major role and were either substantially or possibly entirely responsible for the foolish escalation in land prices which took place throughout the early 1980s. Anybody who asks friends in banking, where people have direct knowledge of these matters, will find that, almost without exception, the reason why those farmers are insolvent today or are at risk of becoming insolvent is that they paid excessive prices for land in the early 1980s. In other words, over a long period farmers have had the misfortune of very bad leadership. I regret that that continues and that they are being exploited yet again in this campaign over the fringe benefits tax. The plain fact is that the overwhelming majority of farmers will have little, if any, liability to pay fringe benefits tax. If that campaign succeeds, the revenue of the FBT will fall short by something of the order of $600m in a full year. That will have to be recovered somewhere else or the tax cuts will have to be abandoned. If it were decided to recover it somewhere else, there are a number of potential areas where it could be recovered. One such area would be by terminating the full refund of excise on farm distillate, and that may well be what the National Party and the Liberal Party are contemplating doing because when they were in government there was not a full excise rebate on farm distillate. Perhaps that is what the Liberal and National parties are thinking of doing again; abolishing the fringe benefits tax and, in order partially to offset the revenue loss, abolishing the full rebate of excise on farm distillate. If that happened, if the Liberal and National Party policy were implemented, the farmers would be vastly more disadvantaged than they would be by a fringe benefits tax. The National Farmers Federation President and his fellow Elders-IXL directors might well have a very sound personal interest in campaigning for the abolition of the fringe benefits tax, but that is certainly not in the interests of the people whom the National Farmers Federation President purports to represent. Senator CHANEY —I draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to the statements of his Western Australian Labor Party colleague, Premier Burke. After meeting with Mr Hawke, Mr Burke said: `I am quietly confident that we have been able to persuade him that the tax should not be imposed'. He was referring to the gold tax. I refer the Minister also to a statement by Mr Burke on radio this morning. After conceding that in a perfect world there might be a tax on gold, he went on to say that gold was a fragile bright spot that deserves to be fostered and not attacked by way of a tax at this time. I ask the Minister, in the light of those comments: Can we conclude that the Government will not proceed with the gold tax proposal? Senator WALSH —The Government has not made a decision on that issue. I expect, although I do not guarantee, that a decision will be made within the next month. Senator Chaney will have to contain his curiosity until that time. In contrast, of course, the general public will have to wait 12 or 18 months-perhaps forever-to find out what sort of fringe benefits tax the Opposition will impose. The general public might be told that the Opposition will enforce section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and do it retrospectively. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is clear that the Minister has moved to debating the question. He answered the question very shortly and is now debating the issue. He should be sat down. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is getting into the realm of debate and I ask him to confine his answer. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I expect that a Government decision on this issue will be made within the next month. Finally, I draw the attention of Senator Chaney to the West Australian newspaper of 9 August 1984, I think it was, which reported accurately Mr Howard saying that there ought to be a gold tax. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen a statement that indicates that France is not prepared to sign the protocols to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty? If so, can he advise us of the Government's response to this statement? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that, according to a speech by the French Ambassador in Washington on 29 September, France is not prepared to sign the protocols to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The Government very much regrets that state of affairs. It is worth repeating that the Treaty is not anti-French but pro-region. It reflects the strong and united opposition of South Pacific countries to all nuclear testing in their region. The Government also rejects the suggestion made in the Ambassador's speech that the Treaty is detrimental to Western interests in general. United States of America officials, by contrast, have consistently emphasised their appreciation of the efforts of the authors of the Treaty to ensure that vital Western interests are taken into account. The Government rejects the charge that the Treaty is anti-Western. The Treaty seeks to reinforce, not to undermine, the existing security situation in the South Pacific to which Australia's defence relationship with the United States has long contributed. The Treaty in no way impedes Australia's ability to co-operate militarily with Western allies-notably the United States under ANZUS-or to contribute to the main- tenance of stable nuclear deterrence. Senator PETER BAUME —My question to the Minister for Community Services is suggested by a recent article in the Australian newspaper headed: `Budget condemned by leading ALP man'. I ask the Minister: Does he agree with two assertions by Senator John Coates, the Chairman of the Labor Party Caucus welfare committee, the first being that the poor will fall further into poverty under the 1986-87 Keating Budget and the second being that the burden is not being shared equally, let alone equitably as promised, with the greatest burden falling upon the poor? Senator GRIMES —I was not sent the alleged document which was quoted in the Australian but I did read the newspaper article. No, I do not agree with the assertion that the poor will fall further into poverty as a result of the Budget or that the burden has not been equitably shared. In fact, I have personally told Senator Coates one area in which he is wrong. I do not know whether he agrees with me but he is still smiling and still talks to me. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Yesterday in a doorstop interview the Leader of the National Party, Mr Ian Sinclair, talked about providing a total exemption from fringe benefits. What would be the effect of such an exemption? Senator WALSH —I shall quote the exact words used by Mr Sinclair. In response to the question: Doesn't there have to be a tax in any sense on what some of your colleagues have admitted are rorts? He said: The only way to treat fringe benefits is to provide a total exemption, as we intend to do, in getting rid of this fringe benefits tax package. I note that that contradicts what Mr Sinclair himself said last week. It contradicts what his Deputy Leader said last week. It contradicts what Mr Howard said six years ago, but then Senator Chaney contradicts that as well. I was asked what would be the consequences. The immediate consequences, of course, would be a revenue loss of the order of $600m in a full year. However, that figure would very rapidly grow because if there were a total exemption from fringe benefits tax there is no doubt that there would be an explosion in the rate at which income received in cash, and which is therefore taxable, would be converted into income paid in kind, which would be therefore specifically exempt from taxation, as Mr Sinclair suggests. The effect of that, of course, undoubtedly would be that the tax cuts which this Government will introduce on 1 December this year and 1 July next year could not be delivered unless taxes in some other form were vastly increased or outlays were reduced to the extent of-by that time-probably a couple of billion dollars. The tax cuts could not be delivered if fringe benefits were not taxed. If Mr Sinclair's declaration were converted into policy there would be a very serious and very rapid erosion of the income tax base as the message would go out to everybody that fringe benefits were totally exempt from tax. Probably half the income currently being received as taxable income would be converted into non-taxable fringe benefits. The revenue consequences of that would be $10 billion plus. That would be the figure before very long if fringe benefits were not taxed. Of course that will not actually be done because the Opposition, on its secret agenda-the one it will not talk about-has the silly belief that the Opposition could enforce section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act to get at the income that has been evaded over many years. If the Opposition believes it could enforce section 26 (e) it has a moral and legal obligation to collect the tax which has been evaded over many years. The Opposition's secret agenda is to exempt fringe benefits from taxation but to apply section 26 (e). The Government has made the judgment that it is not feasible to do this and it stands by that judgment. But the Opposition believes it is possible. As I said, if the Opposition believes that this proposal on its secret taxation agenda can be enforced it has a moral and legal obligation to enforce it retrospectively. Senator BROWNHILL —Can the Minister representing the Treasurer advise the Senate of the amount by which interest rates are inflated by the official support for the Australian dollar? Senator WALSH —I am not sure precisely what Senator Brownhill means by the phrase `official support for the Australian dollar'. It is well known that the Reserve Bank of Australia has been operating in the market to some extent when it has believed the market rate to be temporarily aberrant and that, therefore, it ought to intervene. The bank's judgment on that question, particularly in the last couple of months, has been well and truly vindicated by what has happened. The bank was intervening when the dollar fell below 60c. I do not know what the bank is doing on a day to day basis. It may still be operating; I just do not know. But the bank's judgment has been vindicated by the market outcome. What the bank is not doing, and has not done since the dollar was floated, is attempt to hold an exchange rate that is grossly misaligned with the underlying market reality. That, of course, is what the previous Government did before the dollar was floated. By a variety of regulatory devices the previous Government maintained the exchange rate at an artificially high level because that was the only policy it had to control inflation. It did not have a wages policy, so for years throughout the late 1970s and the early 1980s when John Howard was Treasurer, as a ghastly substitute for a wages policy it deliberately maintained an overvalued Australian dollar. That did enormous damage to Australian industry, both primary and secondary. I can only assume that if John Howard were ever in a position to have an influence on policy in this country again, that is what he would do. If Senator Brownhill is concerned about interest rates, I remind him that the highest interest rates ever recorded in Australia were recorded in April 1982 when the 90-day bank bill prime rate hit 22 per cent. Senator BROWNHILL —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister disagree with recent Press statements to the effect that the Reserve Bank was most probably escalating interest rates by between 3 per cent and 4 per cent? Senator Robert Ray —Who made that statement? Senator WALSH —I do not know who made that statement. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the collection of around $600m next financial year from the fringe benefits tax to help finance the Government's tax package. I also refer to the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey which shows that a high share of all fringe benefits goes to high income earners. For example, of those in the top income brackets, 18 per cent get transport fringe benefits, compared with only 3 per cent in the bottom income bracket. Can the Minister say whether those liable to fringe benefits tax will tend to be those taxpayers in the community who are to receive a cut in their marginal tax rate from 60c in the dollar to 49c in the dollar? Senator WALSH —The simple answer to the last part of the question is yes. Given that the receipt of fringe benefits tax is overwhelmingly concentrated in high income groups, one is dealing with the same group of people-not the same individuals in every case who are presently paying the 60c marginal tax rate, or at least when the tax reform package is completed would be paying the 60c marginal tax rate in the absence of any change to the tax rate scale. The fringe benefits tax revenue-the equation does not match one to one, but it is roughly equivalent-will be required to reduce the maximum marginal tax rate from 60c to 49c, so the two really are inseparable, As Senator Messner said in an outburst of honesty just over 12 months ago when he wrote the minute of the official shadow Ministry meeting, it would be opportunistic and dishonest to support the goodies in the tax reform package-that is, lower marginal rates-while simultaneously opposing the nasties. Of course, Senator Messner was absolutely correct. It would be dishonest and hypocritical to do that and Senator Messner recommended that the Opposition should not do it. For quite a while the Opposition did not do that but since then, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, in his desperate attempt to maintain his leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia from the repeated challenges of the extra-parliamentary pretenders to the Liberal Party leadership, has opted for dishonesty and hypocrisy. He has done precisely what Senator Messner said just over a year ago that the Opposition should not do. An illustrative example of the sorts of fringe benefits that were paid to a middle to high ranking executive was given, I think, by the Acting Treasurer, in the House of Representatives earlier this week. A representative sample of what is euphemistically called a salary package comprised: A salary of $45,000, which was taxable; a representative allowance of $3,000; $6,000 for superannuation; a leased Toyota Cressida, $5,800-if it was a Mercedes it would be more like $10,000; motor vehicle maintenance and running costs et cetera, almost $2,000; a hostess allowance, $4,000; a low interest loan, nearly $9,000; $3,000 for school fees; and $3,000 for holiday travel. That makes a total income of $115,000, of which only $45,000 is taxable. What are euphemistically called salary packages of that type were not only reasonably common but also increasing at an alarming rate. Because they were fairly common and were rapidly becoming more common, a great deal of revenue that should have been collected in income tax was not collected. As Senator Maguire said, that is of the order of $600m which, as a rough equivalent, will be applied to reducing marginal tax rates for roughly the same group of people, but with this important difference: Those people who were honestly paying the tax on all the income received will be substantially better off. Those who were avoiding or evading paying tax on all the income received, through the conversion of a good deal of it to fringe benefits, will be worse off. They are the people who are squealing and they are the people whom Senator Messner and his colleagues represent. Senator ALSTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Is it a fact that approximately $140m will need to be paid by Government departments and statutory authorities in order to comply with the requirements of the fringe benefits tax? What are the administrative costs involved in collecting these moneys? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a recent study by Professor John Rickard of the Melbourne Graduate School of Management, who concludes that as a result of the fringe benefits tax `the economy may face a significant decline in productivity and reduced government revenues' and that employees on higher value packages will end up being better off, while lower income earners will suffer? Does the Minister disagree with this assessment? If so, can he table any contrary private sector analyses? Senator WALSH —I have briefly glanced at the assessment, I think it was euphemistically called, done by some obscure academic, whose name I have forgotten, from the Melbourne Business School of Management, or something like that. Frankly, I thought it was not worth wasting too much time looking at it, but if Senator Alston would like a disciplined assessment of it, I will try to get one for him in the next couple of days. Regarding the earlier part of the question, I am not sure what the notional payment from the Commonwealth is. I thought it was something less than $140m, but I cannot recall for certain. The greater part of that, of course, is in defence. I think that estimate has been revised downward in defence from the order of $112m to something like $60m or $70m. I think the $140m figure should be revised accordingly. As to the cost of collection, I thought that all the questions organised by the so-called Waste Watch Committee at the Senate Estimates committees should have provided the answer to that by now, unless they are too lazy to add the tables up or, perhaps, incapable of it. I remember that one or two departments were mentioned, one of which I think was the Department of Finance, although I cannot guarantee the absolute accuracy of this. The Department of Finance, when grilled by one of the Perry Masons of the Waste Watch Committee, was asked how much it would cost the Department to administer the fringe benefits tax and it said: `Something less than one half an ASL'-that is, something less than a half time job for one person in a department which has about 1,500 employees. In other words it is negligible. With the possible exception of the Department of Defence, I think that is true for the Public Service in general. Senator ALSTON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Am I to take it from the last part of the Minister's answer that neither he nor his Department has any idea of the approximate collection cost? Senator WALSH —Off the top of my head, no. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Further to my question a couple of weeks ago regarding occasional care and the new guidelines recently announced by the Minister, can the Minister say whether there will be any funding cuts to neighbourhood houses in relation to their provision of child care for occasional users? Senator Michael Baume —It's a dorothy dixer. Senator GRIMES —It is not, you know. The new occasional care guidelines, which were released at the same time as we announced we would provide more occasional care, take into account the fact that in some States such as South Australia occasional care centres are running neighbourhood houses. There is no reason in the world why, under the new guidelines, those centres should receive less funding. I have asked the Office of Child Care to look at that matter. One would expect that some of the centres which are a bit small and perhaps non-viable may want to increase their size to be more viable and get more adequate funding. However, the guidelines will not affect the funding of those neighbourhood centres in South Australia. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the terminating time for the sitting this day be varied to 3.45 p.m. Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.00) —On behalf of the Opposition I have pleasure in leading the debate on the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986 and to indicate from the outset that the Opposition will be supporting the Bill. This legislation makes a number of amendments, some of a minor technical nature and some of considerably more substance, to a piece of legislation originally enacted in 1982 which was itself one of the most significant environmental pieces of legislation introduced and pioneered by the former Liberal-National Party Government. The essence of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 was to give some domestic legislative underpinning for the so-called CITES Convention-the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. During the last few years a concerted attempt has been made on a world-wide basis to bring some regulation into the trade in animals, and into the trade in flora and fauna generally, and, in particular, to provide particular protection for endangered species and those species of plants and animals regarded as being in danger either of immediate extinction or very close to extinction. CITES works by having a number of separate appendices to the original convention in which animal and plant species are listed depending upon the degree to which they are endangered and particular protection is given to them. The piece of legislation now before us seeks to make certain changes to the original legislation and I will briefly outline a number of them. The first is that it gives permission for a new system of export of Australian domestic pets. It is not what one might call a budget Bill; it is, however, very much a budgie Bill since the principal species to be given new status is budgerigars. The Bill will allow people to export their budgerigars provided that the budgerigars were originally bred in captivity, or for the purposes of captivity, and are not taken in the wild. So a new regime will be established to allow the export of domestic pets. Secondly, there is a consolidation of the rules governing the export of invertebrates. Thirdly, there is a tidying up of the administrative procedure to allow multiple transactions, that is, to allow the consolidation of documents regarding the exportation of a large number of animals or plants under this regime without having to make a separate application on behalf of each one. Steps are taken to clarify the search procedures which are available to Customs officers and other officers to check on smuggling, and increased protection is afforded to witnesses when one comes to prosecutions and the various legal steps which may be taken under the Act. One minor technical point is raised in the interpretation clauses of the legislation. It gives protection to animals which are of the class agnatha after pisces in the definition of the term `fish'. In the legislation the agnatha class is the so-called hagfish, a very primitive, jawless fish. I pause at this stage and decide not to reflect upon the Australian Democrats. There has been some considerable doubt as to whether they fall within the normal classification of pisces. Therefore they are separately provided for in this legislation. Senator Grimes —There should be a standing order against bad jokes in this place. Senator PUPLICK —If there were a standing order against bad jokes in this place the chamber would undoubtedly move at a far quicker pace than it does at the moment. The other point to which I draw attention is that over the course of 1985-86 some 2,500 permits and 312 authorities were issued under this Act. The permits relate to an individual document which has to be procured from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in order to allow the export of a plant or an animal which is otherwise afforded protection under the legislation. During 1985-86, 2,500 such permits were issued of which, interestingly, 1,439 were permits issued for the exportation of wildflowers, nearly all of which were exported from Western Australia. In the other categories, 654 permits were issued for the export of kangaroo products, 22 for the export of possums or mutton-birds, 145 for household pets, 60 for items used in scientific research, 110 for zoological displays, 25 for live animals for commercial interests, 26 for non-living animals for commercial interests and there were 19 private transactions. Three hundred and twelve authorities were issued of which 300 were issued for artificially propagated plants, 10 for scientific specimens and two for travelling circuses. This is indicative of the burden of work which is placed upon the Service in terms of the paper work required and which, hopefully, some of the technical amendments in the legislation, particularly in regard to the multiple transaction authorities, may help to pick up. One of the things which are undertaken in this piece of legislation relates to clause 5, which amends section 13 of the principal Act to ensure that live animal specimens can not only be sent from zoo to zoo, but also from a zoo to a relevant approved institution-which means an approved institution that is also a prescribed scientific organisation-and vice versa. Thus section 13 would be widened to provide for the transfer of specimens-for example, from Taronga Park Zoo to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington-so long as the other requirements of section 13 of the principal Act are satisfied. I pause to say something very briefly about zoos and zoological institutions in general. Over recent years a great deal of analysis and a great deal of thought has been given to the role of zoos and zoological gardens in the whole wildlife and animal welfare debate. It is undoubtedly true that many people have become progressively more and more concerned about the keeping of animals in captivity generally and the keeping of them in zoos in particular. I do not believe that all the places which have established themselves as zoos have anywhere near the sorts of standards which ought to be maintained for the welfare of the animals concerned or, indeed, for the alleged educational and scientific purposes which are undertaken. Nevertheless, I do not go along with those people who seek to advance the proposition that there should be a total prohibition on zoos, wildlife parks and the like. I will give three or four examples of the sort of work which can be done in zoological institutions. For instance, many people will be familiar with the work of Gerald Durrell and his establishment on the island of Jersey. One of the projects which he undertook was to try to rehabilitate the species of the Mauritius pink pigeon. There were about 10 known representatives of the species still in existence in Mauritius. Durrell took a breeding pair to his establishment in Jersey and eventually bred them up to a colony of 75 or so. He then took a large number of them back to Mauritius and re-released them into their original habitat where, from all reports, they are doing extremely well and the species has been brought back from the brink of extermination. Senator Peter Baume —Peter Pigott, too, with the Parma wallabies. Senator PUPLICK —Indeed, Peter Pigott's effort with Parma wallabies is one of the more local instances that can be given. Similarly, Pere David's deer, a species of deer which is now extinct in its original habitat in China, was bred up at Buckworth in the United Kingdom, and recently a number of individuals have been returned to China and re-established within their native environment. It is certainly true that enormous numbers are not necessarily a guarantee of continued existence. For instance, in the early part of this century there were in the United States millions of passenger pigeons. The last example of the passenger pigeon, however, died in the Cincinnati zoo in 1913 or 1914. Earlier, only a few generations before that, as I say, passenger pigeons had been recorded practically in their billions, probably, throughout the whole of North America. Senator Sanders —What about the Tasmanian tiger? Senator PUPLICK —Whether the Tasmanian tiger is entirely extinct is certainly one of the intriguing questions in Australian wildlife at the moment. One keeps seeing reports that there have been sightings, that there is some evidence that the thylacine might still be in existence. One certainly hopes so. One certainly hopes that the considerable amount of work that is going on in Tasmania to try to verify this will prove to be successful. I believe that Australia could provide certain advantages as far as these sorts of programs are concerned. For instance, it has been put to me that it would be possible to try to bring from Sumatra a representative pair of Sumatran rhinoceroses in an attempt to re-establish them in Australia by allowing them to breed in more favourable conditions, with the hope that they could then be returned to the very small wildlife parks which are maintained on that island. I think that is the sort of contribution which could be made by Australia and Australian zoological institutions. One ought to understand that the trade in animals is a very large trade. I shall say something about that and then make some comments about the very disturbing nature of criminal activity in the trade in animals. I believe that that is a matter which I should advert to only very briefly because both Senator Sanders and Senator Georges are present. The Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare is doing some extremely important work in investigating, at least from the Australian perspective, some of the allegations which have been raised. The sorts of things people are prepared to pay for is extraordinary. For instance, Mexico has a very large trade, worth several million dollars a year to the Mexican Government, in the export of red-kneed tarantulas. Why anybody would want to keep or purchase red-kneed tarantulas is almost beyond me. Nevertheless, Mexico certainly makes a large amount of money each year by breeding up these creatures-which, I take it, are probably fairly objectionable sorts of beasts-and shipping them around the world. Sri Lanka makes about $20m a year from the export of tropical marine fish-mainly, I suppose, to aquariums and to people who want to have these pretty little things sitting on their desks in their offices, so that they have the chance to look at something which is permanently around with its mouth open and not actually asking for a rise. The Philippines exports some 400 tonnes of raw coral a year. It is certainly true that there is an enormous trade in animals in a place such as Zimbabwe, which earns just over $US6m from the export of wild animals-most of them in an exploitative fashion which we would regard as entirely inappropriate and improper. A very large contribution is made to Papua New Guinea's revenue by the breeding and export of butterflies. There are areas which one would find most objectionable. For instance, the trade in ivory has now become one of the most barbaric trades imaginable. I cannot believe that civilised people in countries such as Australia would still actually be prepared to purchase ivory when they consider not only the way in which the ivory is obtained, but also the danger in which the ivory-bearing species throughout Africa is placed, which in recent years has led to the almost total devastation of the elephant populations in a number of countries. I suppose one becomes slightly concerned when, in order to provide the gourmands of Europe with their necessary supply of frogs' legs, in 1978 in India more than 10,500 tonnes of frogs were killed to yield 3,500 tonnes of frogs' legs to be supplied to restaurateurs and to alleged gastronomes in Europe. One really wonders about some of the things that human beings are prepared to do to animal species to satisfy what, after all, are fairly passing temptations. Nevertheless, the whole CITES convention has had some very considerable successes in limiting the excesses which have occurred in recent years in the killing of animals throughout the world. I will raise a number of smaller matters very briefly. Senator Grimes's advisers might give him a piece of paper indicating a response. I will simply raise two issues and then come back to the question of some of the work that I understand is being done by the Senate Committee. One matter is that of the exportation of sea snake products. Each year, many thousands of sea snakes are caught up in fishing operations in the northern prawn fishery area. These sea snakes die as soon as the catch is brought aboard. The northern prawn fishery is very strictly controlled. It is controlled in terms of the number of operators, the nature of the boats and the boundaries in which the fleet can operate. There is also a closed season. As an inevitable consequence of the operations of the northern prawn fishery a large number of sea snakes are taken in the catch. There has been some attempt by a firm-at least one in Townsville of which I am aware-to seek to make products out of the snake skins and export them. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has responsibility under this legislation, has prevented any export of sea snake products. It has advised that an adequate management program could not be put in place. I find this very difficult to come to grips with because if we are to have an effective regime for the management of Australian flora and fauna one thing which is absolutely necessary is that there be public understanding of what we are attempting to do and public support for the very important work which takes place under this legislation for the conservation of animals. We have a situation in which a large number of sea snakes are condemned to die automatically as part of the controlled fisheries regime. The parks authority says: `I am sorry. The snakes are dead. There is nothing we can do about that but we will not allow you to make any useful products for export from those snake skins. We cannot prevent them being killed as an incidental consequence of the northern prawn fishery operations but we will not allow that to be turned into some commercial use'. That is the sort of dog-in-the-manger attitude which says that although the animals will die nothing can be done and an attempt cannot be made to commercially exploit them. Unless it can be demonstrated that the scientific base for that is absolutely unassailable, it will have the effect of weakening public support for the regime that one wants to have in place. That matter has to be addressed. Senator Georges —There is a problem that needs to be addressed. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Georges says that problems will arise, but the way to date that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has responded has not demonstrated that the problem is scientifically or ecologically based other than to say: `Sorry, it is too difficult. Therefore, you cannot proceed'. The other point to which I will refer is the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in its second report of September 1976 on trafficking in fauna. That Committee recommended that there be controlled exports of certain Australian fauna and, in particular, that there be a controlled export program for Australian native birds. This is an enormous debate, certainly not one that should be opened up in full. It has been a matter of some litigation. Mr Ackroyd and his friends have been to the High Court of Australia. There has been considerable confusion about exactly what is the position. A very sound argument has been put for the controlled export of certain species, particularly of what are regarded as pest native birds. Anybody who has seen the damage to a sunflower crop caused by cockatoos or the damage caused to some farmers by pest species of native birds would be impressed with the argument that one ought to look in an intelligent fashion at controlled export arrangements. That would be justified. There would have to be very strict quotas and approved export institutions, such as zoos. This would be a source of revenue for zoos. There would not be difficulties in establishing a system which could be policed whereby the only exporting authorities would be the zoos, which would be responsible for the identification and certification of individual animals being exported. The argument which is constantly thrown back that Customs officers cannot do the job would not be relevant. The principal thing that this would achieve quite simply is that it would be another step towards making more comprehensive our attack upon the illegal trade and the enormous amount of organised crime which is directly involved in the wildlife trade in Australia. I asked a question on notice in September last year about the number of prosecutions which had occurred as a result of the detection of attempts to export illegally Australian native fauna. The answer was that until 30 June 1985 there was a total of four prosecutions relating to the illegal export of Australian native fauna. These prosecutions were for, firstly, the attempted export of five Australian native birds, for which the accused was placed on a two-year good behaviour bond; secondly, the export of 11 Australian native birds and the attempted export of five Australian native birds, for which the accused failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest; thirdly, the export of approximately 20 Australian native reptiles, for which the defendant was convicted and fined a total of $800; and, fourthly, the attempted export of 18 Australian native reptiles, for which the accused was fined a total of $5,000. Two things can be said. The resources provided by the Government for the detection and prosecution of offences against the legislation are woefully inadequate. Secondly, the penalties are woefully inadequate, particularly when one realises that what we regard as pest species of bird in Australia can be sold for thousands of dollars on the quite open market-let alone the black market-in the United States of America and elsewhere. Therefore, we are dealing with big money. It is not surprising that big criminals, including the famous `Big Vinnie' Terressa and others, have had direct involvement with attempts-attempts which are tied up with the drug trade, money laundering and all such operations-to traffic illegally in Australian flora and fauna. I will not develop this argument further. There is a great deal that I could say but I understand that members of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare have done some very important work in this regard. Senator Sanders and Senator Brownhill will participate in the debate. Undoubtedly they will be able to make some contribution on that matter. That area of organised criminal activity needs the closest attention by Australian Government authorities. As I said, the Opposition is pleased to give its support to this legislation. It is very proud of the fact that the original legislation was pioneered by the coalition parties when they were previously in government. It believes that the Act and the CITES convention to which it refers are working well and are important elements in the international attempts to preserve wildlife and to preserve flora and fauna throughout the world. We are pleased to give our support to this amending Bill. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.31) —I move: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `this Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Animal Welfare for report by the first day of sitting in 1987, and that the Committee give particular attention to whether- (a) the Bill would weaken the supervision of animal exports, such as by the delegation of powers by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, resulting in decisions to export being made by persons who are neither qualified nor informed to assess properly whether an export is in the best interests of the animal or human communities; (b) the removal of the requirement for applications for permits to be gazetted would undermine basic democratic principles by denying the public any meaningful participation in permit decisions; (c) at a time when our native fauna and flora is under ever-increasing threat, strong legislative steps should be taken to close loopholes in existing laws, rather than creating even greater opportunities for those who wish to over-exploit our native species; and (d) there ought to be stronger supervision of the export of animals covered by the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species'. This amendment has the purpose of referring the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986 to the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare for report by the first day of sitting in 1987. I move this amendment for the reason that this is a very complicated and large field of endeavour. Australian wildlife is not now being adequately protected. The Animal Welfare Committee has been studying a number of issues and could bring its expertise to bear in this situation. I would like to see this Bill go before the Committee for that reason. We, as human beings, have a responsibility to look after the wildlife of this world. As sophisticated human beings and as advanced societies we have really lost touch with our environment. Human beings were not always so out of touch. The so-called primitive societies that existed for thousands and thousands of years in harmony with their environment knew full well the value of everything that surrounded them. I have a quotation by Chief Sealth of the Duwamish Tribe of Washington State which I think bears repetition. Honourable senators may note that the principal town in Washington State is now called Seattle and it was named after Chief Sealth. In 1855 he wrote a letter to the President of the United States, in which he said: Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The white man is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's graves, and his children's birthright is forgotten. All Things share the same breath-the beasts, the trees, the man. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the stench. What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, men would die from a great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beast also happens to man. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of earth. The whites, too shall pass-perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses all tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires, where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. And what is it to say good-by to the swift pony and the hunt, the end of living and the beginning of survival. We, as sophisticated people, might laugh at that sentiment, but it really is central to our whole existence. We have the stewardship of the earth presented to us because of our technological development. In an editorial to a newspaper we see that the radical Right, the fanatical Right, is now challenging the national parks system. It wants to get at the environment of the national parks, at the habitat of the animals. We were told on the news that the Aboriginal people gave the New Right permission to go there. This is utter nonsense. The Aboriginal people, of all people, know that they cannot give anyone permission to go on the land. They do not give away the land. The Aboriginal people know that the land belongs to itself. In fact the Aboriginal people-all of us-belong to the land. No one owns the land. I note that the H. R. Nicholls Society-the Hypocritical Rip-off Nicholls Society-had its origins in Tasmania-the poor, benighted little island of Tasmania which used to be a green oasis and which is presently ruled by people who have no appreciation of anything that Chief Sealth might have held dear. The H. R. Nicholls Society, in terms of the environment, has now turned its attention to an overall attack on everything that this nation holds dear. If we left it to the H. R. Nicholls Society it would have 12-year-old children working 14 hours a day for 20c a day digging up the front lawns of Parliament House and turning them into an open pit mine. These sorts of people must be stopped. I am glad to see that the Government has stated that they will not be allowed to operate in the Kakadu National Park. It is interesting to note that the firm operating in Kakadu, Geopeko, is a member of a joint venture with Peko-Wallsend Ltd and EZ Industries Ltd. EZ Industries is owned by North Broken Hill Holdings Ltd, which is one of the biggest wood chippers in the country. Unfortunately, wood chipping takes a tremendous toll on animals. The clear felling operation completely eliminates populations of animals. Many of the animals that live in forests live in hollows in the trees. When the trees are chopped down most of the animals are either crushed in the fall or crushed by the machinery on what used to be the forest floor. Most of the animals that survive that are destroyed in the regeneration burns which take place after wood chipping. If they somehow survive the regeneration burns, they are then poisoned by the 1080 chemical or hunters are brought in to shoot them. So not only is this sort of operation going on in Kakadu but it continues to go on around the country. Frankly, there is very little protection under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act afforded to animals in wood chip situations; in fact, there is no protection whatsoever. The Animal Welfare Committee received a lot of evidence, and much of it would indicate that the present Wildlife Protection Act is not being properly enforced. We note that, independent of our findings, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in the case of Fund for Animals v. Federal Government and Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, found that Queensland's 1985 kangaroo management program was very deficient. It found that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service was interpreting the Act in line with its own long standing precedents rather than in the spirit of the parliamentary Act. The findings contained heavy criticism of the role of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and its administration of the Act. This Bill specifically loosens up many of the requirements of the previous Act. In doing so it allows many of the procedures to go on in a more unchecked manner. Proposed new section 42a provides in part for a new type of export permit. This permit would be available to any person who engaged in multiple transactions, provided that the animals exported are bred in captivity or taken under an approved management program. Any person may apply for and be granted a permit which may remain in force for 12 months. This proposed amendment has profound ramifications for the kangaroo culling program. It would mean that exporters of kangaroo products need apply only for a multiple transaction permit which may be valid for 12 months. I feel that we need to tighten up on the permit procedures rather than loosen them, because already great liberties are being taken with permits. Under the Freedom of Information Act it was revealed that a number of dealers operating in Victoria were using the same permit number. Checks were not being made, in that case. In our hearings we heard open testimony from a number of people. One group was the Customs Officers Association of Australia. We were appalled to find that less than a handful of the many containers that leave Australia every year are actually checked. From memory, only one container, containing kangaroo skins, was even questioned. It was not opened, it was merely questioned because the paperwork was not correct. The Customs Officers Association declared to us that, since it took five working man-days to load and unload a container, the containers were simply not checked. There are no controls in Australia, or very few, over outgoing animal products or fauna. We were told that Customs felt that its duty was to control incoming goods and that other countries would have Customs officers who would do the same for their country. They did not feel it was their duty to check outgoing goods. The States which are engaging in the commercial kill of kangaroos are flouting their own wildlife Acts by taking advantage of section 92 of the Constitution, which allows free trade between the States. This free trade between the States makes it very difficult to determine how many kangaroos actually are being taken. In 1985, 1,343,167 Queensland kangaroo skins entered the trade in New South Wales. In addition, 1,595,000 kilograms of kangaroo meat and 218,000 kangaroo carcasses from Queensland entered the trade in New South Wales in that year. Up to December 1985, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Queensland had exported 403,005 pickled skins and 37,377 raw skins. The commercial quota for Queensland in 1985 was 1,080,000. This is 703,549 fewer skins than the quota. So, are there multiple skins in Queensland? Do Queensland animals have more than one skin? I doubt it. Therefore, there is a tremendous discrepancy in the numbers. Senator Puplick —Queensland politicians do. Senator SANDERS —Senator Puplick says that Queensland politicians have multiple skins. This is yet to be determined. Recently an article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated that 600,000 illegal skins were found in New South Wales. In testimony before us, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service admitted that it did not know how many illegal kangaroos are taken every year. Furthermore, it does not feel that it is significant in terms of its own setting of quotas. It is obvious that a lot of question marks surround the taking of wildlife in Australia. Further concern relating to this proposed new section is specific to koalas. It would eliminate the requirement that the designated authority be satisfied that the recipient is equipped to provide suitable care for each animal exported. It would effectively eliminate ministerial concern and the need for approval for a period not exceeding 12 months. On the import side, proposed new section 42b provides that any person may import specimens without being required to produce any particulars prior to, or on import, provided that the recipient is an approved institution requiring the specimens for research. Research itself is coming under scrutiny by the Animal Welfare Committee. The vexed question of animal experimentation is just now being undertaken by the Committee. We have been travelling around the country looking at animal houses and at the role of the ethics committees in the various universities. I think this area of the Bill needs to be closely looked at to ensure that whatever experimentation is conducted is conducted in such a way that it will be humane and not harmful to the animal. It must not be inhumane to the animal. Furthermore, it must be necessary. We have already received evidence that some of the animal experimentation going on is simply not needed. This area is not addressed at all in the Bill. Less stringent control on wildlife trade at Australian boundaries is potentially dangerous in light of the increased traffic in fauna associated with the drug trade. Senator Puplick has already mentioned the extent of the drug trade. We on the Animal Welfare Committee frankly do not feel that we are capable of dealing with this situation. We would very much like to see a body such as the National Crime Authority look into this aspect. Basically, we are set up to look at the welfare of the animals themselves. Certainly, it is a major consideration. The routes which are used to ship wildlife from Australia are also used to ship drugs back into the country on the back haul, and it is a problem. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! In accordance with the resolution passed this day, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 3.45 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 1261) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) How many notices of arrears have been received by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for the following years: (a) 1983-84; (b) 1984-85; and (c) 1985-86. (2) What is the month-by-month breakdown for the year 1985-86. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total number of loans in arrears under report to HLIC at 30 June for each of the last 3 years is set out below. The actual number of new loans falling into arrears and the number moving out of arrears are not available. (a) 1983-84-1,453; (b) 1984-85-1,146; and (c) 1985-86-1,744. (2) The numbers of loans in arrears at the end of each month of 1985-86 were: July 1985 1,084, August 1,082, September 1,093, October 1,050, November 1,068, December 1,024, January 1986 1,027, February 1,195, March 1,282, April 1,514, May 1,539, June 1,744.