Wednesday, 26 November 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned concerned citizens of Australia shows that: the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap is a vital part of United States plans to fight a nuclear war, thus implicating Australia in these immoral plans; spy satellites such as those linked to Pine Gap are used to spy on both allied and non-allied countries, including Australia; these activities of Pine Gap are a destabilizing influence in a dangerously uneasy world, raising the level of fear and distrust between nations; the significance of Pine Gap to the U.S.A. is such that it is a prime nuclear target; Pine Gap desecrates an Aboriginal dreaming track. Your petitioners therefore strongly urge that the Australian Government give to the government of the U.S.A. the one year's notice required to terminate the lease on the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 126 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: (i) the welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy, expanding gold mining industry; (ii) the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations; (iii) the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represent a threat to the profitability of these industries and will therefore cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation scheme. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- * preservation of benefits to retirement * vesting of employer contributions * equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. 2. The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Maguire (from 30 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 Senator Brownhill (from 12 citizens). 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 the 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 76 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December, 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament: The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Djiboutian Government intends to repatriate all refugees from that country back to their homelands in Ethiopia by 1st January, 1987. These refugees, Oromos, Tigrayans, Eritreans, Ogaden Somalis and Hararis, all of whom remain bitterly opposed to the ruling Ethiopian Government will risk imprisonment and even execution by being returned. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Obtain urgent Government protest of the return of these refugees to Ethiopia. Protest should be lodged with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the Djiboutian Government. As an alternative solution, the Australian Government should offer resettlement in Australia to a number of refugees now in Djibouti. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer (from 93 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Canberra respectfully showeth: Our strongest disapproval of the Government's shortsighted decision to terminate the Community Recreation Courses in the A.C.T. We believe this decision to be contrary to the best interests of both the local community, for which the Federal Government is directly responsible. It is our view that, as well as providing an avenue for the personal development of residents of the A.C.T., these courses maximise the use of valuable public assets, and act as a positive deterrent to vandalism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reverse your decision for funding of these courses. by Senator Reid (from 361 citizens). Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I present the following petition which is not in conformity with Standing Orders from 324 citizens: To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. This petition of the Undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The cutting of Austudy to Social Security beneficiaries will have a detrimental effect on efforts to reduce the numbers of recipients of these benefits because of their inability to obtain skilled work. 2. The study allowance proposed in the 1986 budget will not cover the cost of childcare, incidentals or study materials thus restricting access to secondary and tertiary education. 3. The removal of dual eligibility for Social Security beneficiaries is a regressive step in enabling access to education and the quality of life for all Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray that the dual eligibility for Austudy and Social Security benefits be reinstated. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. Petitions received. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the demand from the Minister for Finance that the Opposition should pay $400 for a computer print-out of details of grants made under the $1,400m community employment program that the Department admits will take only two minutes to produce which had previously been denied to the Opposition and which was only to be supplied after a freedom of information request was lodged; (b) further notes the assertion by the Prime Minister on Sydney radio that `information about the community employment program is quite readily available'; and (c) requires the Minister for Finance to accept the direction of the Prime Minister and immediately make available this information, which is of major public interest to the Opposition free of charge so that the Australian people may be better informed of the extent of the massive waste of taxpayers' money involved in this program. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the Australian mining industry's persistent attempts to undermine the Federal Government's attempts to list stage II of Kakadu National Park on the World Heritage List; (b) objects to the inappropriate promotion of this as a sop to the left wing within the Australian Labor Party (ALP) following the resumption of uranium sales to France because there are hundreds of thousands of other Australians outside the Australian Labor Party genuinely concerned about Kakadu's status; (c) reaffirms the need to preserve all stages of Kakadu free from the ravages of mining; (d) notes that there is no point in declaring any part of Australia as a national park if mining companies are going to be allowed to take out exploration leases therein; and (e) expresses concern that uranium mining in Kakadu, which is what this argument is all about, is morally indefensible on any grounds. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government for its irresponsible and wasteful expenditure of taxpayers' money on grants and other funding to fringe community groups and union bodies; (b) records the Opposition's view that these funding arrangements have not the full sanction of the Australian people; (c) seeks an explanation from the Government as to why funding programs such as the community employment program and the art in working life program have been politicised in their objectives by grants made available to dissident fringe groups and union bodies; (d) notes with alarm the apparent hypocrisy of the Government in handing out funds to these groups in light of its supposed restraint in fiscal expenditures; and (e) requests the Government to review its funding to these organisations and freely make available to the public the precise details of all grants that have been approved to date. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the Hawke Labor Government be congratulated on its plans to introduce an effective means of personal identification in the form of the Australia Card which will mean that- (a) the Department of Social Security will have the most effective means to eliminate social security fraud; (b) the Taxation Office will possess the most effective weapon in its arsenal to fight tax evasion; and (c) employment opportunities will correctly and rightly be for those people who are Australian citizens or residents. (2) That the Opposition stand condemned because of its failure to support this most effective measure of attacking social security fraud and tax evasion, such a stance by the Opposition clearly showing how seriously it takes social security fraud and tax evasion. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the criticism by many Australians of the $2m spent by the Federal Government on self-promotion under the guise of advice to the public on coming tax changes, including the fringe benefits tax; and (b) calls on the Government to reduce wasteful expenditure. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Automotive Industry Authority-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to section 27 of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984. 2. Superannuation and Insurance and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984-Part 1-Superannuation-Human Rights Commission Report-pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 3. Review of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977-Stage one-Administrative Review Council Report. 4. Department of Trade-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 5. Australian Film, Television and Radio School-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 63M (i) of the Audit Act 1901. 6. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation and National Objectives-ASTEC Report-pursuant to sub-section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 7. Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 8 (1) of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965. 8. Department of Social Security-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 148 (1) of the Social Security Act 1947. 9. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. 10. Special Broadcasting Service-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to section 79ZH of the Broadcasting Act 1942. 11. Amendment to the format of the monthly statement of Commonwealth Financial Transactions-explanatory statement-pursuant to sub-section 49 (2) of the Audit Act 1901. 12. Review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education-Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Report-pursuant to sub-section 9 (3) of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977. Motion (by Senator Siddons) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to collective agreements regulating the terms and conditions of employment of employees of corporations and for other purposes. Bill presented by Senator Siddons, and read a first time. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.09) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Because of the importance of this Bill, I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to outline the history and principal objectives of the Bill. This Bill was originally drafted by me in 1982 with the help of two eminent lawyers, Dr Ronald McCallum of Monash University and Dr Graham Smith of Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education, who donated their valuable time in the interests of industrial relations in Australia. Mr Monro, Parliamentary Counsel assisting the Senate, gave extensive advice on the original draft. The unexpected 1983 election prevented this original Bill being introduced into the Senate, but it was taken up by the then Senator Jack Evans, who developed it further and introduced it into the Senate on 14 December 1983. This Bill was never debated. I have now streamlined the original Bill and, with extensive help from Dr McCallum, Dr Smith and Mr Monro, now introduce the Bill in a form which I hope is readily readable and understandable by all members of the Parliament, and all members of the public who are interested in industrial relations. It does represent, I believe, an historic step forward in industrial relations in this country. It has been drafted after careful consideration of the Constitution and legal precedent, and these considerations are set out in some detail in a joint publication by Drs Smith and McCallum in the Journal of Industrial Relations, March, 1984. This paper should be carefully studied by any serious student of industrial relations in Australia. The centralised wage fixing system is under threat from the New Right and the Liberal Party of Australia. The accord mark III, or the two-tiered wage system, has just been accepted in principle by unions. This consists of one tier of wage rises granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and a second tier to be negotiated at the enterprise level. Thus the principle of enterprise bargaining has gained acceptance. This Bill does not in any way cut across the two-tiered system of wage fixing currently under debate, but offers a clear alternative, on company level wage bargaining, to the existing centralised wage fixing system in Australia, should both management and unions agree. The Government-sponsored work practices meeting in Melbourne in late September resulted in all parties deciding that reform must occur at the work place level as a result of discussion between employers and employees. This is further acceptance of the role of collective bargaining, and this Bill establishes a legislative framework to allow this to happen. The Liberal Party talks vaguely about collective bargaining, but it has no practical policy options. This Bill is the culmination of an immense amount of work and gives the Government the option of either adopting the Bill in its entirety or in a modified form immediately, thus pre-empting an acrimonious and confusing debate on wage fixing in this country-a debate which, if not settled quickly, will undoubtedly become a major election issue. Wage fixing is far too important an issue to become a pawn in tawdry electioneering. This Bill offers a practical alternative to centralised wage fixing. It puts in place a voluntary collective bargaining mechanism alongside the present conciliation and arbitration framework. It gives a clear alternative to wage fixing while keeping in place the centralised wage fixing system. It is the first realistic, practical alternative to the present centralised system and would offer enormous flexibility to wage fixing in this country. This Collective Agreements Bill is one of the most innovative pieces of legislation ever to come before the Parliament. It cuts across the grid of Federal and State arbitration laws, minimises demarcation disputes and, most importantly, promotes the growth of mature negotiating skills at the work place. The Bill relies on the corporation powers in the Constitution to conclude binding agreements with the trade unions, providing both parties wish to do so. It is purely voluntary, and does not disrupt or impinge upon Federal or State arbitration laws. Where there is more than one trade union involved, the Bill allows for a chief negotiating union to negotiate on behalf of all unions involved. The features of the Collective Agreements Bill are as follows: 1. It allows unions and employers to enter into binding contracts outside the centralised system, should they so desire, but keeps the centralised system in place. 2. It prevents collective agreements from undercutting awards. 3. It gives unions a central place in negotiating agreements. These first three points differentiate our approach to collective bargaining from that of the Liberals. They want to destroy the centralised system, reduce wages and destroy the union. We do not. I seek leave to incorporate the balance of the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The balance of the speech read as follows- 4. It allows agreements on a wide range of areas such as work practices, job design, demarcation, profit sharing and worker participation, as well as wages and conditions. 5. It dovetails with present Commonwealth and State industrial law. The reasons for supporting collective agreements are: 1. They enable employment packages to be put together which suit the needs of individual enterprises, while protecting the interests of workers. 2. They encourage co-operation between employers and employees and between different unions in one work place. 3. They enable productivity to be increased by the inclusion of a wide range of matters in agreements. 4. They formalise over-award bargains. Without legal recognition such bargains often lead to industrial disputes. 5. They help develop sophisticated negotiating skills in the work place. Because the Federal Government's power to legislate in this area is limited to interstate industrial disputes, there is no single mechanism for conciliation and arbitration. This means that employers and unions alike are faced with a multiplicity of Federal and State labour laws which are more complex and legalistic than those of any comparable federation such as Canada or the United States of America. The present system is too complex, too legalistic and too centralised to function effectively. Formal collective agreements reached through informal collective bargaining often relate to matters which could never be incorporated in either federal awards or in certified agreements. Agreements often cover matters such as the payment of health insurance for employees and their families, and consultation over the implementation and effects of technological change and various other ``managerial prerogatives'' which have been held by the High Court to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The only way of stabilising collective bargaining is to institutionalise it through legislation. Collective bargaining already exists. This Bill will make agreements enforceable at law, and will have a normative effect where, and only where, they are entered into voluntarily. This Bill seeks to overcome major defects in our systems of compulsory conciliation and arbitration. As the Australian Parliament's power to enact conciliation and arbitration laws are limited to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, extending beyond the limits of any one state, it is impossible for there to be a single national mechanism of compulsory conciliation and arbitration. The Australian arbitration tribunals, by their very nature, operate the most centralised labour relations mechanism of all Western industrial democracies, with the exception of Austria. This centralisation prevents the establishment of mature negotiating skills at the work place. The limited scope of the `industrial power' in our constitution, together with the limited scope of the State labour relations laws, inhibits the development of formal industrial relations practices in relation to such matters as consultation between trade unions and employers over the introduction and implementation of technological changes, redundancy schemes, employee participation, work practices, penalty rates, job security, and other `management prerogatives'. This Bill is a voluntary mechanism which neither disrupts nor impinges upon federal or state arbitration laws. Under this proposal, if trade unions and a corporate employer voluntarily conclude a binding collective agreement, then during the life of the collective agreement the various federal and state arbitration tribunals will be deprived of jurisdiction (other than with respect to demarcation disputes) to settle any labour relations differences between such trade unions and that corporate employer. Once a collective agreement is signed, both parties will be expected to comply with it. Consequently, if during the duration of such a collective agreement, wage rates in a relevant award were increased, such an increase would not automatically flow on to employees under such a collective agreement. To enhance the making of such broad agreements, provision is made for the disclosure of information by the parties at the negotiating stage. The voluntary nature of this proposal is enhanced by the absence of punitive measures. However, there are provisions to ensure that parties conform to collective agreements which have entered into voluntarily, and to deprive them of the benefits of this proposal should they fail to comply. If a party to a collective agreement, whether the employer or a trade union, breaches a collective agreement (other than in a matter relating to safety, health or the welfare of employees), then any of the other parties has the automatic right to immediately terminate the collective agreement. The proposal will require every collective agreement to contain a grievance procedure which must be availed of at first instance, to settle any differences which may arise between the parties. After the completion of such a procedure, the parties then have the option of gaining an interpretation of the agreement from the court. A collective agreement will be a civil contract between the parties. Parties will have recourse to the Federal Court to ensure compliance by other parties. They will be able to sue other recalcitrant parties and obtain orders requiring the other parties to abide by the agreed terms and conditions of the agreement. This is the crux of this Bill-that collective agreements should be enforceable at law. This Bill provides a legal framework which will not impinge upon the federal or state mechanisms of compulsory arbitration. In addition, it takes into account the trade union structure in Australia. In comparable federations such as Canada and the USA, where collective bargaining is common, it is possible to operate mechanisms where a single trade union is the exclusive bargaining agent for every employee in a bargaining unit. However, in Australia trade unions are registered under the various conciliation and arbitration statutes and trade union Acts. Consequently, a system of collective bargaining must recognise this structure and must allow multi-union bargaining within each enterprise. This Bill does this by providing framework which utilises the existing trade union structure at both federal and state levels. By providing a legal framework for voluntary collective bargaining, this Bill acknowledges the realities of Australian industrial life-that collective bargaining already exists and is being extensively practised-that collective bargaining often relates to matters which can never be incorporated in either federal or state awards. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Mason) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to repeal the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981. Bill presented by Senator Mason, and read a first time. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.15) —by leave-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- Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is, clearly, to repeal the Koongarra Project Area Act of 1981. As honourable senators will be aware, the Koongarra Project Area Act was submitted to this House on 12 June, 1981-the last day on which the Government then led by Mr Fraser had the number of senators needed to force any Bill it wished through the Parliament. The Koongarra Project Area Bill was brought on illegally, with total disregard for the sections of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 which provide for at least 15 sitting days notice to both Houses of Parliament, and 60 days for public comment after publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of any intention by any government to remove land from a national park. This Parliament now has the opportunity to correct that act of piracy by repealing the Koongarra Project Area Act and thereby returning the Koongarra mining project area to stage one of the Kakadu National Park. Honourable senators will be interested and, I am sure, relieved to hear that section 3 of the Koongarra Project Area Act has not yet been proclaimed. Section 3 is that section of the Act which actually excises the Koongarra mining project area from the national park. It is therefore most appropriate that the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981 be repealed immediately, while its repeal is a simple and straightforward one. Mr President, in the Koongarra area as it now stands, the Australian people have an invaluable treasure-an area of unique scenic, archaeological and ecological importance. The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry second report 1977-known as the Fox report-opposed the exploitation of the Koongarra deposit, and suggested that the South Alligator River catchment area was the most suitable large total river catchment for inclusion in the Kakadu National Park. Any mining at Koongarra would cause irreparable damage to the South Alligator River catchment area. The Fox Commission also pointed out that the Koongarra area is: . . . located upstream from the extremely valuable Woolwonga Wildlife Sanctuary . . . the Woolwonga area is so valuable ecologically that we would oppose in principle any mining development upstream of it. If the Government allowed any damage to the Woolwonga area, which is now incorporated in Kakadu National Park, it would be abrogating its responsibilities under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and Australia's agreement with Japan for the protection of migratory birds in danger of extinction. Even the original mining company's environmental impact statement described the Koongarra area as: . . . containing a most diversified range of ecosystems, wildlife, wetlands and landscape formations not found elsewhere in the continent . . . the region has a number of Aboriginal sacred areas, relics and features. The ancient Aboriginal art work found in many of the caves and galleries of the rock outcrops has no equivalent in Australia. Indeed, the archaeological value of the prehistoric sites of Kakadu National Park, of which Nourlangie Rock is one of the most important, is massive. In a report on archaeological research in Kakadu National Park, leading Australian archaeologist, Dr Rhys Jones, and Tia Negerevich wrote: . . . along the base of the great cliffs . . . are rock shelters which constitute one of the world's most important storehouses of information about the prehistory and the art of hunting and gathering man. In terms of the number and age of occupied rock shelters, and the staggering profusion and antiquity of the brilliant rock art sites, the Kakadu area can be compared with some of the classic archaeological locations of the world . . . in Kakadu, the Aboriginal owners are the direct descendants of the people who lived in the rock shelters and who painted the art . . . The conjuction of living Aboriginal traditions, and extremely diverse and rich landscape and the wealth of archaeological sites, some with proven antiquity back to 23,000 years ago, makes the Kakadu a key zone for research into the prehistory of Australia. The writers liken the importance of the Kakadu sites to the Dordogne cave paintings in France, with the added factor of the direct descent of the traditional owners from the inhabitants of the area over 23,000 years ago. The unique beauty of the Koongarra area, including Nourlangie Rock, the South Alligator River catchment area and the Nourlangie Creek catchment area, would be destroyed forever if mining were allowed to take place at Koongarra. Explosions from a mine site there might cause falls or slides of segments of Nourlangie Rock itself-one of the most significant archaeological sites in Australia. There would be a significant increase of dust in the atmosphere, and that, as well as other adverse ecological effects of such a mine, would cause direct degradation of the archaeological sites, as well as the indirect degradation caused by scars on the landscape from roads to the mining area, noise and air pollution, and pollution of the water table. None of this must be allowed to occur. With the repeal of the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981, the area will be returned to its rightful place in Kakadu National Park. The area is of such obvious international significance that I am sure its inclusion in the world heritage listing for Kakadu National Park stage I would be merely a formality. I remember the very strong views put forward in this place in June 1981 by Australian Labor Party senators when the original Bill was brought on. They were horrified that such a unique area should be excised from a national park so it could be destroyed in the commercial interests of a mining company-and a Canadian-owned mining company at that. On that occasion all Labor senators joined with the Democrats to vote against the Bill. I am sure, with the Prime Minister and the ALP speaking so strongly against any new mining in this area lately, the Government will be consistent in its attitude, and will join with us once again on this issue to replace this beautiful area in the middle of Kakadu National Park and preserve it for future generations to enjoy and to wonder at. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate, and I look forward to its speedy passage through both Houses. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) 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 the Radiation (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, be postponed till 2 sitting days after today. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.18) —I move: That the Advisory Council Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 62 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. The Advisory Council Ordinance serves no useful purpose for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. It manages to achieve the singular distinction of not doing this despite the Hawke Government's supposed commitment to self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. In one fell swoop this Ordinance manages to take the clock back to before 1930 when the first Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council had three elected residents amongst its seven members. In fact, this new body does not even have three elected members. This Ordinance formalises the inability of this Government adequately to consult the people of the Australian Capital Territory. If such a consultation had taken place at the outset of the self-government exercise something reasonable could already have been on the statute book. However, the Cabinet chose to conduct everything it was doing behind closed doors in a most paternalistic manner. Senior Ministers did not want to hand over any effective decision-making to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The original offer of so-called self-government contained extraordinary powers for the Commonwealth Government to dismiss the Australian Capital Territory Council virtually at its whim. It also gave the Attorney-General remarkable powers to vet and clear all local laws as within the powers of the Council. Such insults would have been avoided if only the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) had cared to consult some of the people of the Australian Capital Territory or the bodies that represent them. Similarly, if the Cabinet had not thrown out the 1974 report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the 1984 report of the Craig Task Force on self-government for the Australian Capital Territory we would have had sensible proposals emerging for self government for the Australian Capital Territory. After all, both the parliamentary committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was a member and the Craig Task Force conducted extensive public hearings before writing their reports and making their recommendations. Both bodies were unanimous in their view that the proportional representation method of electing a government for the Australian Capital Territory, which had been used since 1949, was the most suitable electoral system for the Australian Capital Territory. Both bodies recommended a full-throated form of self-government and not the sickly type of squawk that emerged from behind closed doors when eventually the proposed self-government legislation was presented to the Parliament. However, the numbers men were determined to make certain that their local members won government outright on about 40 per cent of the vote. This is all history. However, it is worth while pointing out that this is the very objection the Australian Labor Party has to the outrageous zonal system which applies in Queensland. It seems very inconsistent that it should be trying to put that type of system in the Australian Capital Territory when it is crying about the zonal system in Queensland, which the Hanlon Labor Government introduced when it was going through a rough patch in the 1940s. All of the opportunities were there for the Government to consult the people of the Australian Capital Territory but Cabinet chose to take the most paternalistic and self-seeking road all on its own. The Advisory Council Ordinance 1986 is the ultimate evidence of the bad faith with which these manoeuvres have been carried out over the last 18 months. I believe that the regression to the pre-1930 situation starkly contrasts with both the Whitlam and Fraser governments' attitudes towards responsible government within the Northern Territory and is entirely in keeping with the corporatist spirit of this Government-a spirit of allowing to flourish only what the Government and its henchmen can control. The Ordinance is a far cry from the words put into the Governor-General's Speech at the opening of the Thirty-third Parliament on 21 April 1983. This was a sacred undertaking which this Government made to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. In that speech the Governor-General said: My Government is committed to bringing self government to the Australian Capital Territory. As a first step, a broad range of local government powers will be transferred to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. Amongst other things, the Advisory Council Ordinance repeals the existence of that House of Assembly, thus being a step backwards and breaking yet another solemn undertaking in relation to the Australian Capital Territory. No powers of any significance were ever transferred to the Assembly before it was abolished, which abolition is planned to be effected by this Ordinance. Not much notice was taken of that body either. We have a long history of ordinances proposed by that body not being put into effect by the Minister. An opportunity to take a first real step towards responsible government was squandered. At the time of the report of the task force on implementing self-government in the Australian Capital Territory the then Minister for Territories and Local Government promised a White Paper in the first half of 1985. This was meant to encourage public participation and discussion on the Government's intention. In his statement Mr Uren went to great pains to assure the people of the Australian Capital Territory that they would get fair and equitable financial treatment. The fear of sudden Commonwealth transfer of financial burdens certainly is one of the main reasons why many Australian Capital Territory residents are suspicious of self-government in any form. The previous Minister made these remarks: Those financial arrangements would be built around a five year transition period involving appropriate financial guarantees and designed to minimise disruption and enable the fullest opportunity for the negotiation of future funding levels. These things have also failed to occur. The self-government legislation had no financial guarantees. All that we had was the Minister's fairly vague assurances that for the next two years the Government would consider the same funding levels. These have to be weighed alongside the 1982 assurances about the Belconnen Mall, which was eventually sold despite promises to the contrary, and the short-lived Budget attempt this year to tamper with the conditions of mortgages of the people in the Australian Capital Territory who have fixed interest Government loans. All in all the record of this Government and this Minister on this question is very bleak. This Ordinance, which I am seeking to disallow today, is yet another nail in the coffin of the Minister's credibility. Some broken promises would have been avoided if a strong determined Minister, such as Mr Uren, had remained in charge. We certainly would not have had the insult of this Advisory Council Ordinance. Quite frankly, the Minister and the Cabinet seem to have no idea of what they are doing. They are making one bad decision after another on the run. The desperate nature of some of the Press releases, I believe, brings this out completely. One finds in them the factual errors that have carved out an unfortunate reputation for the Department of Territories and the Minister. For instance, in the Press release of 22 August this year it was stated: It is now clear that the Senate will not pass the Government's legislation on self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. It has always been clear that the self-government legislation would get through the Senate; it would get through amended if only time were made available for debate. The Press release continued: The Senate is not prepared to grant Canberra self-government under conditions that would guarantee the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory the democratic right of direct election and rejection of their representatives. That is blatantly not true. The most remarkable feature about the Tasmanian Hare-Clark system that was proposed in the amendments that we would have moved-the Government knew we would have moved them-is the degree of influence it would give voters over the elected candidates. It is a way of voters in practice choosing the candidates even within a given party. The Press release continued: The Government will also now proceed to establish a body to replace the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. I sought the views of more than 30 community and business groups in the Australian Capital Territory on the appropriate form of an advisory body to replace the old Assembly. The clear majority support a small appointed and more flexible body. Freedom of information documents were obtained-we have them in our possession-and they show the last assertion to be completely false under any normal way of counting. Perhaps the Minister for Territories has developed some type of method to give him the results that he requires. Most people were not in favour of these conditions holding together. They might have been in favour of a smaller body but none appeared to be in favour of an appointed body in particular. Any government committed to effective self-government decision-making would at least have announced a timetable for the devolution of responsibilities. These arrangements were made and updated in the Northern Territory between 1974 and 1978. It should not have been beyond this Government to come up with something similar if it feared that the Senate would seek to give effective self-government to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I remind honourable senators that the Australian Democrats put forward a constructive alternative-an immediate election of the House of Assembly and a gradual handover of powers in June to that Assembly. This was after the House of Representatives had risen and there was not even the opportunity to get agreement on the Government's nine pages of amendments. It would have represented a first step toward self-government and given the Government a chance to hold a referendum on the electoral system or to throw some money into yet another self-government inquiry. The Minister rejected this. It seems quite strange that on 30 June, the day on which the previous House of Assembly's term expired, the Minister for Territories said in a Press release: There will be a period of up to six months before an election for a new body can be held. That was after that process. He gave the quite spurious reason that electoral arrangements for the House of Assembly ordinance no longer complied with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. On 18 June the Minister was more specific. He wanted a smaller advisory council of perhaps about 13 members elected in late November or early December. The Canberra Times of the following day quotes him on this and says that the election should be from the existing Australian Capital Territory electorates on a multi-member basis. This is exactly what the Democrats would have accepted and there would have been absolutely no problem. Cabinet Ministers certainly did not want an election so we ended up with something much worse than that-a body described by Mr Leedman as worse than a `troupe of performing seals'. I believe that this was a very apt description. The Advisory Council ordinance sets up such a body. The Minister for Territories was to hand pick an advisory council. Future Ministers in fact need not be lumbered with his choice because they can get rid of these people an appoint a new lot. The confusion actually increased when the Advisory Council ordinance was gazetted and we had a ministerial statement on the matter. Obviously someone forgot to tell the Minister what was in the ordinance and what had been decided upon by Cabinet. The ordinance says that there shall be 13 members and that the function of the Council is to advise the Minister on any matter affecting the Territory that has been referred to it by the Minister. This suggests that the Minister will pick and choose the topics on which he wants advice. However, the ministerial statement of 15 October says: It is my intention to give the Council a standing instruction to offer advice on an ongoing basis on any issue of concern to the Government and the Australian Capital Territory community. He in fact hopes that the Australian Capital Territory community will be `more aware of the body's very limited role in advising the Minister'. Once again he claims a clear majority of opinion, after his consultation in writing, supporting the appointment of this smaller, more flexible, less costly body than the former assembly. He continues: There was a substantial body of opinion supporting the contention that the ACT community ought not to be subjected to the expense and inconvenience of elections to a body which has only a limited range of advisory functions and no democratic or executive responsibilities. The statement about a limited range of advisory functions is clearly in conflict with the Minister's intention to issue standing instructions to offer advice on an ongoing basis on any issue of concern. The use of the words `clear majority' and `substantial body' does not match the freedom of information material which we obtained despite the leading way in which the Minister wrote to each of these groups. We are shocked further when we take a look at the ordinance itself. There are quorums at meetings; votes are taken on questions; tied votes mean motions fail to pass; and the Advisory Council can set up its own standing orders with the approval of the Minister. It is a type of pseudo government. As Mr Leedman says, it has the trappings for a troupe of performing seals. The Remuneration Tribunal was in fact brought in to determine the perks of office. The President can perform civic duties on the Minister's behalf. No one quite knows the cost of the whole operation and we have not been told about it. In his Press release of 31 October, the Minister said: The former House of Assembly cost the Australian taxpayer $1.2m annually. I expect the bill for the Advisory Council to be less than half this amount. Well, it is not less than half. There are no elected people. It would be an absolute scandal if it costs even half as much. If the Minister is thinking of five-figure sums, there are quite a number of far more useful things that could be done with those. For example, we could find $10,000 for the Capital Territory Health Commission to put into the hydatid control campaign. I could go on indefinitely on the number of ways in which we could spend this money in a much better way. The Department of Territories could get more recycling of solid waste under way. We could get draftsmen to draft the legislation for the Australian Capital Territory and revise the antiquated ordinances so that we would have a reasonable body of law under which to operate this Capital Territory. The Government has reneged on this undertaking and is keeping the staff of the Attorney-General's Department occupied with I do not know what. This is quite significant because the Department's latest annual report made it quite clear that the process of law review has completely fallen behind the suggested schedules. We could look at this process in some detail. I would just like to finish by pointing out that the Canberra Association for Regional Development has protested at the reversion to the situation of the 1930s. That is one of the bodies from which the Minister claimed support. The Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service has declined to nominate anyone for, and is requesting its members not to participate in, the Advisory Council. Friends of the Earth has said that the proposal is completely inconsistent with the democratic principles on which this country is based. Students at the Canberra College of Advanced Education have attacked the patronage of appointments and claim that members will be unlikely to raise any matters which could potentially embarrass the Minister. The Canberra Program for Peace Committee has called for a gradual handover of powers to an elected body instead of the current charade. In fact, the Minister will have great difficulty in coming up with the 13 people to put into these positions. He will not find people of sufficient public stature. Even his own party has made the statement that anybody who is appointed to this body will be expelled. That is the level we have reached, and that is why I am urging the Senate to reject this pathetic ordinance. If the Government is indeed genuine about its concern for the people of the Australian Capital Territory and not merely afraid that the Australian Labor Party will not poll anywhere near 50 per cent of the votes, it has a way out. It could indicate a timetable for the gradual handover of powers to a locally elected body, as happened in the Northern Territory in the 1970s. Better still, it could bring its Australian Capital Territory Council Bill into the Senate and see it pass with the improvements that the Opposition and the Democrats would put into it. It certainly should not be heading back 60 years and crawling back into a bunker with only its own people to advise it. I remind the Minister of his own words that accompanied the legislation, which is now at the bottom of the legislative Notice Paper. He said of the Australian Capital Territory: It stands as the last remaining significant community in the Western world having no form of local or State administration answerable to the people. The Minister stands condemned in his own words because he wishes to perpetuate that situation. The Minister has received a letter-which has come to me as well-from Justice Roma Mitchell of the Human Rights Commission, which states that the Commission has received a complaint to the effect that the abolition of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly is taking civil and political rights away from people, and calls upon the Minister to answer this complaint. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that letter to the Minister. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 28th October 1986 The Hon. Gordon Scholes MP, Minister for Territories, Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, The Commission has received a complaint to the effect that the abolition of the ACT House of Assembly and the absence of an elected replacement is inconsistent with article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The relevant parts of article 25 read: `Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote freely and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;' Article 25 entitles citizens to take part in the conduct of public affairs and to vote at elections guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. The thrust of the complaint is that residents of the ACT do not enjoy this right to the same extent as most other Australians, who have the benefit of a three tiered system of elected representatives. The Commission understands that there has been some indication that there will be no elections in the ACT until at least 1990. This may represent an intention inconsistent with article 25. At this stage of its existence, the Commission has neither the time nor the resources to conduct a full scale enquiry into this matter. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate that in the ACT-for which the Federal Government is directly responsible-everything should be done to avoid the suggestion that, by abolishing the single existing form of representative government below the national level, Australia is acting inconsistently with its human rights objectives. The Commission would be grateful if consideration could be given to obtaining an appropriate form of representative government for the ACT. Yours sincerely, Roma Mitchell Chairman Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entitles citizens to take part in the conduct of public affairs and to vote in elections guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. The Human Rights Commission has tried to put this into effect. The letter that I have incorporated in Hansard explains this in great detail. The Commission said that it would be grateful if consideration could be given to obtaining an appropriate form of representative government in the Australian Capital Territory. It will be a tragic irony if the Advisory Council is the first matter upon which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission gets to conduct a full scale inquiry. The damage to this country's reputation could be avoided by setting in place a program for the handover of decision-making ability and responsibility to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. This Ordinance, which I urge the Senate to disallow, is indeed such a disgrace and could lead to that type of embarrassment for the Government and for the people of this country. I commend to the Senate that this Ordinance should not be passed. It is basically a very bad ordinance. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.41) —The Government opposes Senator Vigor's motion to disallow the Advisory Council Ordinance. We should look at the speech that we have just heard here today, which went for about 25 minutes and which told us why we should disallow what Senator Vigor says is a bad, nasty ordinance. In fact, most of that speech was spent rehashing the debate on the nature of self-government that Senator Vigor would like to see in the Australian Capital Territory. We heard a lot of words. We heard a lot of accusations about the motives of Cabinet Ministers, the motives of what he calls the numbers men in the Australian Labor Party, the motives of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) and the incompetence of the Minister. What do all these words cover and what is it all about? We should just briefly think about that. The Australian Democrats have let Senator Vigor have his head on the matter of the Australian Capital Territory. He went running, and he went running hard. Therefore, we all have to have some sympathy for a senator in his position, who runs as hard as he has, who gets a high profile on this matter and then finds at the end of it that he picks up the Canberra Times and sees his photograph, underneath which he is described as the butcher of self-government, and reads articles in that newspaper in which he is again described as the butcher of self-government. In the last few days the President of the Australian Democrats in the Australian Capital Territory has resigned from that position in protest against Senator Vigor's handling of this very issue. I have considerable sympathy for that. But that also explains why here this morning we have had this torrent of words about the disallowance of this Ordinance. The simple fact is that we would have self-government and a democratic representation in the Australian Capital Territory if Senator Vigor had not been so rigid and if he had been able to compromise and to negotiate. We could have had a form of self-government. We could still have Mr Gordon Walsh as President of the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Australian Democrats. But, as Senator Vigor says, what we have here is the last remaining state in the Western world without self-government. If the choice is self-government or government by the Minister, I believe that the Minister has done a sensible thing. He is putting in an advisory council, which is quite obviously and plainly an advisory council to him. When he goes out, it goes out and a new Minister appoints a new advisory council. There is no pretence that it is anything else. What Senator Vigor has done has demonstrated his incompetence as a negotiator in this area. He took his Party not only to the brink, but right over the brink. The Opposition was very happy to go over with him because it thought both he and the Government would be embarrassed. Let us cut through all the words and nonsense and realise that that is the situation we are in now. The Government made proposals for self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. We had a substantial package of compromise amendments to the self-government legislation. We had a significant compromise on the electoral provisions which were tabled in both Houses of the Parliament on 3 June this year. The Government was prepared to negotiate. It attempted to negotiate. It was prepared to compromise. It did compromise. Senator Vigor decided that he would not compromise. The other Opposition parties decided that that was a good political thing to do so they went along with him. It is that group, but particularly Senator Vigor, which is responsible for the failure of the legislation to proceed. Senator Vigor complained that the Government wanted to force on the Australian Capital Territory what he described as a rigid and unfair form of self-government. In passing, he suggested that we wanted to ensure that the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party was in control of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory forever. I can assure him that that is not necessarily greeted by members of the Labor Party in this Parliament with a great deal of enthusiasm. Senator Vigor wanted to say: `I know what is best for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The Government does not know, the Minister does not know. You do what I say or it is not a fair system'. That is not compromise; it is not even a decent exercise of democracy. Senator Vigor —It is the majority of the Parliament. Senator GRIMES —For heaven's sake, it is not the majority of the Parliament. Does Senator Vigor want a joint sitting to see who will have the majority in these circumstances? If he wants to have a joint sitting, then we will see what the majority of the Parliament is. During the debate on self-government we made it clear, as everybody in the Territory realises, that the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, with its formal, quasi-parliamentary mode of operation and its high operating costs has outlived its usefulness. When the Assembly's term of office expired on 30 June and when we realised that we were not going to get self-government legislation through the Parliament-not only through the Senate; there is no reason why the Senate should dictate to the Parliament-the Minister wrote to a substantial number of Australian Capital Territory community and business groups, all political representatives of the Territory, seeking their views on the most appropriate body to advise him on Australian Capital Territory matters. There was a clear majority in favour of the appointment of a smaller, more flexible and less costly body than the former House of Assembly. A substantial body of opinion supported the contention that the Australian Capital Territory community should not be subjected to the expense and inconvenience of electing a body with only a limited range of advisory functions and executive responsibilities. Therefore, we have the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council Ordinance. Following discussion with the Opposition, the Government again agreed by letter-I am sure that Senator Reid or other honourable senators will mention it later-to delete the reference to a specific number of councillors in the Ordinance and to remove section 10 (3) of the Ordinance which deals with the question of a quorum. That part of the Ordinance dealing with remuneration and allowances has also been clarified and an amending ordinance will be made as soon as practicable. The role of the Advisory Council, as set out in the Ordinance, is to advise the Minister for Territories on matters he refers to it. It is also his intention to give the Council a standing instruction to offer advice on an ongoing basis on any issue of concern to the Government and the Australian Capital Territory community. Senator Vigor apparently thinks it improper that the Minister should give such a standing instruction, or perhaps he thinks it is beyond the Minister's powers to do so. He made a great song and dance about it. I think that if we are going to have an advisory council there is nothing wrong with the Minister giving such an instruction. Why should he not give such an instruction? It is a sensible thing to do. Without the trappings and the quasi-parliamentary nonsense that used to go on with the Assembly we will have an advisory council which will be aware of its limited role-and there is no argument that it has a limited role. It will require fewer support staff. The cost of operations will be considerably less than the cost of operations of the former House of Assembly. As I said earlier, the Minister has decided-the Government agrees with him-to tie the term of office of the advisory council directly to the term of office of the Minister. Again, that is a sensible provision. Future Ministers will not be lumbered with advisory councils they may not be able to work with or may not want to take their advice from. It is not a satisfactory situation. The Government wanted self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. A considerable number of people in the Australian Capital Territory wanted self-government. As Mr Gordon Walsh has said, the sensible thing would have been to negotiate with the Government, have an evolving situation and work out a program so that we could have established self-government in the Territory and have that self-government evolve as self-government has evolved in every other democratic country. But Senator Vigor would not cop it. He decided that this was the big issue he was going to make his reputation on. His reputation now is as the butcher of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. His reputation is not very high with the Australian Democrats in the Australian Capital Territory. The President has resigned because of his rigidity. This Ordinance is an effort by the Minister to provide some degree of input from the people of the Australian Capital Territory into the government of the Australian Capital Territory. I hope that in the near future we will again be able to introduce proper representative government in the Australian Capital Territory, once the feelings of suspicion and the controversy which have existed in the last couple of years about this issue have passed. We have had an attempt by a government to introduce self-government. That attempt has been frustrated, on the one hand by someone who was too rigid and who wanted to stamp his rigid views on self-government, assisted on the other hand by Opposition parties which were trying to make the best of the situation, for which I suppose I cannot blame them. This Ordinance is a sensible approach to a difficult problem. To disallow it, to throw the whole thing out and leave everything in the hands of the Minister, would be unsatisfactory. Therefore, I urge honourable senators to oppose the motion for disallowance. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.53) —The Senate is debating a motion by Senator Vigor to disallow the Advisory Council Ordinance 1986. When this Government was in an election mood it promised the people of the Australian Capital Territory that they would be given self-government. The Governor-General told the Parliament that the people of the Australian Capital Territory would be given self-government. The Advisory Council Ordinance is what the Government has produced. It confirms for the people of the Australian Capital Territory ministerial dictatorship and a pseudo House of Assembly as an advisory body appointed by the Minister. Despite what Senator Grimes has said, there is no doubt that the reason the Government is imposing this on the people of the Australian Capital Territory is that it is concerned that the left wing of the Australian Labor Party would have taken control of any elected body and would have created great difficulties for the Government by the left wing policies the body would no doubt have adopted for the Australian Capital Territory. It is as clear as a bell that that is what happened in Cabinet. When the proposal for self-government came before the numbers men, as Senator Vigor described them-I agree with him-of the Australian Labor Party they pointed out to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to Senator Walsh and possibly to Senator Grimes if he was there, what would happen as a result of this proposal. So the Government produced a Bill which it said was not negotiable. Senator Vigor did not say he would not negotiate. The Minister announced at his Press conference when he introduced the package that it was not negotiable. That package clearly was designed to be rejected by the Senate. There is no question about that. Later, when the time had passed for extended or increased representation of the Australian Capital Territory at the July conference of the Australian Labor Party to occur and this had not taken place the Minister was authorised to start doing a bit of negotiating with the Opposition and/or the Australian Democrats to see what he might be able to get through the Senate; but until then the package had not been negotiable. The Senate still has not had an opportunity to debate this matter. The clear reason for that is that the Government is fearful that the Senate will pass a Bill with some amendments. The Government then would be under real pressure from the left wing members of the ALP in the Australian Capital Territory to accept the amendments passed in the Senate and so the Government would be lumbered with a Bill which would enable its left wing to create great difficulties for it. It has been the Government which has not given the people of the Australian Capital Territory self-government; not the Opposition and not Senator Vigor. The result is that the Government has introduced the Advisory Council Ordinance. As Senator Grimes conceded, it is not satisfactory. Nevertheless, it makes the position clear for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. When they had an elected House of Assembly the position appeared to be unclear to many people because they thought that they were electing a representative governing body. But the truth was that the council had no power or responsibility and so the wool was being pulled over the eyes of the people. They voted in an election. The advisory council met-the House of Assembly as it was called, but in effect it was an advisory body. There appeared to be some semblance of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. Of course, that did not exist but it appeared to exist. Now the people of the Australian Capital Territory know precisely where they stand. No such body is in existence and the people now understand that they are living under a ministerial dictatorship and the Minister will be advised by a council which he will appoint. So under the Government's proposal the position is crystal clear. That is why we will not support Senator Vigor's proposal that this ordinance be disallowed. We want the people of the Australian Capital Territory to understand that they do not have self-government and that this Government has failed to keep its promise to them. Senator Vigor proposes that we simply disallow this Ordinance and so leave the Minister in a position of dictatorship without an advisory council in the hope that at some stage in the future we can force the Government to have an election for a House of Assembly. As I have indicated, I see no merit in that proposal. I praise the former members of the House of Assembly for the work that they put in. There is no doubt that all members of the House of Assembly, in whatever Party, worked extremely hard and certainly did a great job to the best of their ability. However, I criticise the institution. It was created without responsibility and really was not worthy of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. As I have said before, to have such a body simply confuses the issue. This Government's decision at least enables the people of the Australian Capital Territory to know where they stand. It is quite clear. They are governed by ministerial dictatorship. I say to Senator Vigor that taking away an advisory council, even an elected advisory council, is not taking away the people's rights and freedoms. It is not taking away representative government. I have some sorrow and sympathy for those people who have written to me and to other senators saying what a pity it is that they do not have an elected House of Assembly with no powers and which simply had an advisory function. I cannot see that that is worthy of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. My colleague Senator Reid will explain to the Senate some of the advantages which we have been able to arrange under this Ordinance as a result of negotiating with the Minister. Those advantages will be of benefit to the Ordinance. The only other matter to which I want to refer is the Australian Capital Territory Effective Self-Government Bill introduced by Senator Vigor. I simply say that that proposal for self-government for the Australian Capital Territory including Jervis Bay was unrealistic and, unfortunately, pandered to many of the trendy minority groups with which clearly he had had negotiations. For these reasons, the Opposition will not support Senator Vigor's proposal to disallow this Ordinance. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.02) —We are discussing whether the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council Ordinance should be disallowed, under a motion by the Australian Democrats. A great deal has been said this morning about the history of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. In a sense, it is relevant to the discussion but it has been discussed and there is no purpose in going over it. There is really no need for such an ordinance. If the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) wants an advisory council he can easily have one. He has appointed Mr Paul Whalan to his staff to advise on matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory. Undoubtedly, he is entitled to have advisers but he has sought to bring this forward in terms of an ordinance. There are perhaps two reasons why this would be so. One is to create the position of a president who would be able to represent the Minister at civil functions around the Territory which would relieve the Minister of that burden. The Minister also clearly sees this as an opportunity in the schedule to abolish the House of Assembly ordinance which, if not abolished, would require an election to be held for another House of Assembly. The powers of the proposed Advisory Council are fairly limited in that its members will advise the Minister on any matter affecting the Territory which has been referred to them by the Minister. He may or may not make any referrals to the Council. The Minister is entitled to an advisory council if he wants one. It would have been a gross extravagance for him to have an elected Advisory Council. I will explain why in a minute. In clause 6 of the legislation the Minister seeks in addition to a president to have 12 councillors-that means 13 members. That is a gross indulgence and is a much larger Advisory Council that the Minister really needs or is entitled to. He is also making it much more structured than it should be by including a paragraph which says that there must be seven members present to provide a quorum. An advisory council to the Minister ought to be a much more informal gathering and have fewer members. We also moved to disallow the clause relating to remuneration and allowances to enable us to say that we do not see the positions as being highly paid with large salaries. Obviously, there should be some form of honorarium for the President and perhaps a similar honorarium for councillors that is consistent with the work that they will be doing. These matters would have to be settled by the Remuneration Tribunal and submissions can be made to it. It is my intention to withdraw my motion for disallowance of the three sections to which I have referred. In relation to the Minister's response to those matters, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter which is dated 18 November 1986, addressed to Senator Lewis, which deals with those items. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Senator A. W. R. Lewis Senator for Victoria Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Lewis I refer to discussions which you and Senator Reid have had with my Senior Private Secretary about amendments to the proposed ACT Advisory Council Ordinance 1986. I confirm that I am willing to amend the proposed Ordinance by - deleting the number `12' in s.6 (1) (b) and - deleting s.10 (3). In relation to your proposal to delete s.8 (1) and s.8 (3) of the Ordinance relating to remuneration and allowances for Councillors, I confirm that in seeking a determination from the Remuneration Tribunal, I would be proposing that Councillors receive a level of remuneration in line with the work required of them. I am, however, looking to the President of the Council to fulfil a substantial civic role in addition to his other duties as a Councillor-a role which I expect will involve a much larger commitment of time than other Councillors. I would be proposing that the Remuneration Tribunal take this additional work load into account when deciding on an appropriate level of remuneration for the President. I expect that in determining remuneration and allowances for Councillors, the Tribunal will have regard to the fact that unlike members of the former House of Assembly, Councillors will be appointed rather than elected and will not therefore have specific electoral responsibilities. It is, of course, open to you to make a submission to the Tribunal on the matter, should you so wish. I should also add that under s.7 (8) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, either House of Parliament may disallow a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. I would propose to introduce the amendments to S.6 (1) (b) and S.10 (3) by means of an amending ordinance as soon as possible after the ACT Advisory Council Ordinance has become law. Yours sincerely GORDON SCHOLES Senator REID —I have received a few letters from people who have raised the issues involved in this debate as to whether the Advisory Council should be elected and whether it should exist at all. A few have suggested that it would be quite wrong to vote out the legislation, which would mean that a House of Assembly would have to be re-elected. The one thing that is clear from these letters is that the people who have written all basically say that there should be a form of self-government in the Territory and that to return to an appointed Advisory Council is a retrograde step. I understand those arguments, but none of these proposals gives any form of representative government to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The setting up of a House of Assembly, which is only another form of Advisory Council, does not get us anywhere towards self-government. I think that point needs to be made, as it was made by Senator Lewis in his remarks. The House of Assembly previously appeared as though it were some form of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. The reason why it appeared so was that the members worked so hard and put so much effort into it. They were certainly an effective group in terms of electoral representation and dealing with electorate matters. They are being missed because of that. But they had no responsibility in the decisions that they made and they were not accountable for the proposals that they put forward. Another House of Assembly or an elected Advisory Council of the same kind will not advance the people of the Territory as far as real representation is concerned. It is interesting to look at comments that have been made in the past. The following article appeared in the Canberra News: The Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Bryant, will today unveil a plan to restructure the ACT Advisory Council. Mr Bryant will put forward a proposal for a 15-man elected Advisory Council as an interim measure to any future self-government . . . The proposal is certain to have a stormy reception. That article appeared on 14 March 1974. Madam Acting Deputy President, you will be interested to know that on the same day the merry-go-round in Civic was opened by the Minister for the Capital Territory. In a sense, nothing much has changed. As Senator Vigor mentioned earlier, we had an Advisory Council in 1930. I sometimes wonder whether we will ever have self-government. It has certainly been something that people have wanted for a long time. Mr Anthony, when he was Minister for the Interior, was committed to it. Mr Bryant and the Labor Government from 1972 to 1975 were committed to it. The Liberal Minister, Mr Staley, certainly was committed to it. The Labor Government, more recently, was unequivocally committed to it by the then Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hayden, in May 1982. It was reiterated in the Governor-General's Speech in April 1983. I sometimes wonder whether it is just too difficult and will never happen, or whether there is something within the system that precludes the evolution of a meaningful working form of self-government. The people need to know that we have no self-government, that we do not have any responsibility for the decisions that are made by the Minister. An Advisory Council, if elected, would be an expensive way of receiving advice. I certainly oppose this Advisory Council being elected. As I said, the Minister is entitled to appoint it if he thinks it will be of any benefit to him. I strongly suspect that he may find that he would have been better off without it. In fact, he is the person who will make the decisions. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), in speaking for the Minister for Territories, said that without it everything would be in the hands of the Minister. I would say that with it, everything is in the hands of the Minister, because the Advisory Council will not have any powers and the Minister certainly does not have to take its advice, in any event. So we have not really gone forward. In not supporting the disallowance, we merely say that the Minister is entitled to his Advisory Council if he wants it. We are not in any way suggesting that it is any form of self-government. We also say that the restoration of the old House of Assembly is not any form of self-government or representative government. We think that this should stand, if that is what the Government wants, and that is our proposal. Subsequently, I will withdraw the motion for disallowance that I have moved, for the reasons that I have indicated. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.10) —in reply-In closing this debate I wish to express some degree of disappointment in the Opposition for not supporting this measure, and particularly for withdrawing its motion, which would have meant that this Parliament could have had an influence on, or at least the ability to reject, the remuneration that was proposed for members of the Advisory Council. I say this particularly in light of statements that were made by Mr Howard in 1974 when he was a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, which recommended full-blooded self-government. He is now the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Howard, in a speech which he made in March 1975 when that Committee's report was tabled, said: I express the view that at all stages the Committee's deliberations on the form of self-government which should be adopted for the Australian Capital Territory were approached in a non-partisan way and in a non-political fashion. This exercise was perhaps the first time since Federation when a committee of any Parliament in Australia had had the opportunity, as it were, of starting from scratch and drawing up an outline of the form of self-government for a part of the Australian Commonwealth. In fact, I know that what was proposed by the Government was not the enlightened proposals which the Craig Committee-the Task Force on Implementation of Australian Capital Territory Self-Government-or the Joint Parliamentary Committee whose members included Mr Howard supported. Amongst the other recommendations of the Committee were that self-government be granted to the Australian Capital Territory community in as wide a term as is consistent with the national interest. The Committee also stated that legislation for the Australian Capital Territory on all matters not reserved for national control should emanate from within the Assembly and not from a body external to it-which is what the Federal Parliament does. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from the Canberra Association for Regional Development, which represents a large number of bodies within the Canberra community. The letter is addressed to the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), but copies were sent to both Senator Lewis and me during the negotiations. I believe it admirably sets out what the bodies which are members of CARD believe on this matter. I have shown it to senators on both sides of the House. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 10 September 1986 The Hon. G. Scholes, MP Minister for Territories Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister I refer to your letter of 7 August 1986, in which you responded to my letter of 19 June 1986, to the Prime Minister about ACT self-government. It is disappointing that you equate the quite limited consultation you had with the ACT House of Assembly's Transition to Territorial Government Committee with the full and frank negotiations between two groups of politicians on a basis of equality which were contemplated in my letter. In your letter you state the actual position when you refer to meeting ``with the Assembly and the committee on several occasions to discuss aspects of the legislation''. (my underlining) Clearly full and complete negotiation was not permitted, and this was not surprising in the light of the many messages we and the community received through statements by yourself, Ros Kelly and John Langmore which made it clear that the proposal was on a ``take it or leave it'' basis. My Association has, of course, had discussions with the Assembly's committee and we have no reason to believe it was consulting from the strength of equality. Rather it consulted from the weakness of subservience. Because these facts are a matter of public record I am sure there is no need for me to quote press statements, radio comments, etc., which stressed this message. However, we believe the Canberra Times Editorial on 20 March 1986, correctly described the general perception of the situation when it said-``the arrogance of the government's insistence on no amendment is particularly insulting in the context of what the legislation is supposed to be about. It is as if the Government wants to stress that the whole package is an imposition, not a bargain or compact.'' In developing its model the government chose to ignore the previous recommendations of Parliamentary Joint Committees, the ACT House of Assembly and the Craig Task Force. It is our understanding that, had the House of Assembly's Committee been able to negotiate from a position of equality, it would certainly have used these recommendations as a model. I draw to your attention two comments in your second reading speech on the ACT Council Bill 1986. - ``It (the ACT) stands as the last remaining significant community in the Western World having no form of local or state administration answerable to the people''. - ``Taxation without representation'' is a long-heard and valid catchcry. The people of Canberra have a right and indeed a responsibility to elect representatives to oversee the spending of the revenue raised in the ACT''. We support those two statements and on them we base our position which I now repeat. - We believe the present lack of self-government in the ACT is an indictment on a democratic and claimed `nondiscriminatory' government. - With the failure of the proposed legislation the gross discrimination against the ACT community continues. - We do not believe this is defensible, nor do we accept attempts to lay the blame solely at the door of other parties. - We seek the election of a representative body, under the existing electoral system, with power to negotiate the terms for the transition of relevant powers to a self-governing body. - We do not support a reversion to the position which existed in the 1930s-that is, an appointed advisory body. I will be sending copies of this letter to the Prime Minister and to the ACT representatives in the Parliament. Yours sincerely R. A. Schall Chairman Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Part of the letter reads: We believe the present lack of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory is an indictment on a democratic and claimed `non-discriminatory' government. The Association believes that the current situ- ation is not defensible. In summary, my arguments concern the fact that there have been broken promises by the Minister throughout this proposal for self- government. There have been errors in Press releases. I believe that the Minister will become known as the Minister for dog licences and garbage, because basically a Minister of the Crown will have to consider all of these matters in detail at his level. It is quite beyond my understanding why anybody would want to deal with those matters at the Federal level. I believe we have not heard the end of this process, because I believe the appeals through the successor to the Human Rights Commission will result in further deliberations on the matter. The people of Canberra will get effective self-government at some stage even if it means that the current Federal Government has to be kicked out before they get it. It certainly is a right for the people of Canberra. I believe this Ordinance that I am urging the Senate to reject is an insult to the people of Canberra. If the Minister for Territories wants to have his Advisory Committee he should have it and not put the provision into an ordinance. The main problem with this Advisory Council is that it is being paid for by the taxpayer. That is a scandal. We are being expected to pay for something which is of absolutely no use to the people of Canberra. That is why the Democrats are opposing this process. The Opposition is quite prepared to have it happen so that it can hold the Government up to ridicule and point out that the Minister is just a dictator in this matter. The Democrats are not prepared for the people of Australia to suffer and to pay out money for such a folly. I believe that it is the responsibility of every thinking senator to oppose this Ordinance. Question put: That the motion (Senator Vigor's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. (Teller)Mason, C. V. J. Siddons, J. R. Powell, J. F. Vigor, D. B. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume Peter McClelland, DouglasBjelke-Petersen, F. I. McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Newman, J. F. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. E. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Durack, P. D. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sheil, G. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Teague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed from 25 November. AUSTRALIAN BILL OF RIGHTS BILL 1985 The CHAIRMAN —The question before the Committee is the following motion moved by Senator Gareth Evans: That further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 be postponed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.25) —Last night I was saying that once again the Bill of Rights is rearing its ugly head in this place-this time through the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985. As has already been indicated, there was a sunset clause in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill and the situation is that it must now be debated again. I believe that these sunset clauses are of great benefit to the Parliament. I believe they should be used more frequently. There is no doubt at all that this Commission needs a review. It is time that there was considerable debate about the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission because there is considerable concern out there in the community. The CHAIRMAN —The motion before the Chair is that the consideration of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill be postponed. There will be a subsequent opportunity to debate the Commission. Senator Gareth Evans —You will have an opportunity to talk about the Commission under the next motion. Senator WALTERS —Yes, I realise that. The CHAIRMAN —You should confine your remarks to the postponement of the consideration of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Senator WALTERS —It is because Senator Gareth Evans eventually moved last night that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill be postponed-thrown out, indeed-that we are in this situation. It was not until we were half way through our debate that Senator Gareth Evans rose and put that motion at the end of the evening. If he had put it earlier we would have been in the position this morning of getting ahead with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. As a result of Senator Gareth Evans's very late announcement last night, I thought we had now moved to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill and that we were not debating the postponement of the consideration of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. The CHAIRMAN —No, the motion before the Chair is that further consideration of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill be postponed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.28) —I want to raise another matter in relation to the whole question of the debate about the Bill of Rights. The Government is now moving that further consideration of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill be postponed preparatory to moving for its withdrawal. I welcome the fact that at the end of the short debate we had last night, which was rather boisterous as a result of the impatience of Senator Gareth Evans throughout the 10 minutes or even less that I was speaking, rather than at the beginning of it, he gave notice with our leave-it may have been unjustified in the circumstances-of his intention to discharge the Australian Bill of Rights Bill from the Notice Paper in the course of the present debate. That is a welcome move. It will certainly be supported by the Opposition. However, before we finally leave the Bill of Rights and the intention of this Committee, I do want to refer to one matter which did receive a great deal of publicity and which I believe needs to be corrected. I want to refer to a statement that Senator Gareth Evans made on 11 June 1986 when I asked him a question about the Government's intentions in relation to the Bill of Rights. He answered by saying that the Government had every intention of proceeding with the Bill. We know now, of course, that within two months the Government announced that it was going to withdraw the Bill. I do not want to go back over that, but in the course of answering my question Senator Gareth Evans said: If the Opposition has not engaged in what has been clearly the most extravagant, self-indulgent and destructive filibuster in the history of this Parliament, in a debate that has so far occupied some 36 hours of parliamentary time-the longest debate in our history since Federation, or at least since records have been kept- it would be interesting to know at what stage we did not keep records of our parliamentary proceedings- it would have been possible for the Bill to have passed this House by now. I ask Senator Gareth Evans why he so recklessly and grossly misled the Senate in that answer and why he unfortunately seems to have misled the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) because I notice that on 13 August, in an interview on the AM program, the Attorney-General said: You've got all sorts of views expressed about an international covenant which surprises me. You've got an issue that you can't guillotine in the Senate. They don't have the opportunity to finalise the base there. This is all a very interesting example of the knowledge of the Attorney-General about the procedures of the Senate, but I will let that pass. He further said: Well it's been as I say it's been running- I am quoting, actually- on in debating times for about a month in the Senate, it's the longest Bill since Federation. So to that extent we do have a difficulty. He was preparing the ground for the withdrawal that was announced a few days later. I have asked Senator Gareth Evans why he has misled the Senate, the Attorney-General and, indeed, the Australian public. I have had some work done by the Clerks of the Senate in relation to times taken on consideration of Bills over the period 1950 to 1986. They have not yet completed a consideration of times taken on Bills prior to 1950. It may surprise Senator Gareth Evans to know that records have been kept of the proceedings of this Parliament from 1901 to 1950. It will be interesting to see what those statistics reveal. In relation to the period from 1950, the Australian Bill of Rights package, which took 35 hours and 2 minutes of debating time, was alleged by Senator Gareth Evans and the Attorney-General to be the longest debate since Federation, but it is only the fourth longest debate that has occupied the time of this Senate. In fact, the longest time was 69 hours and 48 minutes, which was occupied by the Communist Party Dissolution Bill in 1950. Next was the Commonwealth Bank Bill 1950, which occupied 55 hours and 47 minutes, and next came the Social Services Consolidation Bill 1950, which took 37 hours and 48 minutes. Then came the Human Rights Bill, which took 35 hours and 2 minutes, and the National Health Bill 1970, which took 31 hours and 49 minutes, which is not so very much less than the Bill of Rights package took. There are a number of others in the table. It is of some interest, so I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard this table prepared by the Senate Table Office and dated 12 November 1986. Leave granted. The table read as follows- CONSIDERATION OF BILLS 1950-86 Summary of Time Taken Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950... 51 hrs 20 mins Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950 [No. 2] ... 18 hrs 28 mins 69 hrs 48 mins Commonwealth Bank Bill 1950... 36 hrs 30 mins Commonwealth Bank Bill 1950 [No. 2]... 19 hrs 17 mins 55 hrs 47 mins Social Services Consolidation Bill 1950... 37 hrs 48 mins Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 1985... 35 hrs 2 mins National Health Bill 1970... 31 hrs 49 mins Constitution Alteration (Prices) Bill 1950 (Private Senator's Bill)... 29 hrs 51 mins Family Law Bill 1974... 28 hrs 29 mins Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979 Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979 Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979... 27 hrs 57 mins Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Bill 1971... 21 hrs 38 mins Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 1979... 20 hrs 55 mins National Crime Authority Bill 1983 National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983... 13 hrs 43 mins Freedom of Information Bill 1981... 13 hrs 22 mins Sex Discrimination Bill (No. 2) 1983... 12 hrs 8 mins Sex Discrimination Bill 1983... 4 hrs 55 mins Senator DURACK —I raise this simply because the Government made a total welter of this misrepresentation, commencing with Senator Gareth Evans in the Senate on 11 June and repeated by the Attorney-General, no doubt on the totally misleading advice given to him by Senator Gareth Evans. He might have had his own research. But I do not believe any research was done at all. His statement was so totally reckless and totally wrong that any research would have turned up this information. It will be very interesting to see the statistics from the first 50 years of parliamentary history. My guess is that many longer debates will be turned up in relation to the early period of the Parliament. As a result of this total misinformation the Government has run strongly and abused the Opposition in a most unjustified way and has made a welter of public statements about this matter. This was done recklessly, without any basis of fact and, apparently, without any serious attempt to find out the facts. I believe that this legislation is not only one of the most gross incidents of misleading the Committee that I have ever seen in this place but also a gross misleading of the Australian public in what was a very major debate over a period. I want Senator Evans here and now to explain why he misled the Senate and to apologise for it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.36) —I too would like to say something on this solemn occasion of the interment of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985. I am happy to act as one of the pall-bearers. Senator Puplick —More like a grave-digger. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, a grave-digger. My fear, however, is that the Bill of Rights is just simply undergoing a metamorphosis, having been sent to the Constitutional Commission. I do not think it would be wise for people to say that it is completely dead and buried, but that it is simply on the backburner for a while because those who have attempted to foist it on the Australian people have not given up hope of re-engineering Australian society from above in their own image. As honourable senators would be well aware, I am a strong opponent of the Bill of Rights. I have argued all along that the measure was an attack on democracy and our parliamentary institutions. Both inside this place and outside it I have argued that, taken together, the Bill of Rights-the ABR-and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 would give to non-elected government officials the power to decide questions about our rights and our duties which are properly the function in our democratic society of Parliament to decide. I have argued and I still maintain that the tendency of the Bill and the Commission to subvert the role of our democratically and constitutionally established institutions has been one of the key reasons why I believe that the people of Australia have expressed their views and the Government has deferred its policy on this question. I had hoped that there would have been a greater change, an internal change. A large number of government members are strongly opposed to the Bill of Rights. I have not worked out the proportion but others do not accept that. I would be interested to hear what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has to say in answer to what Senator Durack has said. It would do the Government well to jettison the concept completely, not just to put it on the backburner, not just to send it to the Constitutional Commission so that it could undergo some sort of metamorphosis and rise up again. I do not think it will rise Phoenix like because I do not think it will be triumphant in the end. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.39) —If nobody else wants to speak on this simple procedural motion, let me hopefully conclude the debate simply by not tracking over any of the history of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 debate, much as I might be tempted, given more time to do so. I will simply respond, as I am invited to do, to Senator Durack's forensic triumph in pulling out the actual figures for major debates that have taken place since 1950. I certainly said in June that it was my understanding that debate on this legislation was the longest debate that has taken place since Federation. That was not a reckless statement made without reference to the authorities around this place whose institutional memory is substantially longer than mine. I qualified those remarks by reference to records in the way that Senator Durack has described. I was referring not to the records in the Journals of the Senate and Hansard but to records in the form of cumulative records-- Senator Durack —Are you being serious now? Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course I am being serious-in the sense of material ready to hand about calculations that have been made about the time taken on particular Bills. I was not off on some private frolic or fantasy of my own; what I said was based on a genuine attempt to find out what the situation was. It is the case, as Senator Durack has said since he now requires the Clerks to engage in a massive amount of research to prove his essentially-quintessentially-trivial point, that there are three other Bills or groups of Bills that have been turned up which occupied longer debating time. Since he has produced this forensic triumph, as I have said, my only remaining comment would be that the 35 hours and 2 minutes that the human rights debate has so far taken us, while certainly not the longest debate to have occurred in concluding consideration of Bills, certainly seemed destined to assume that status had that debate been allowed to continue. I remind the Committee that this debate does not represent the concluded consideration of these Bills. By contrast, we were up to only clause 8 of the Bill of Rights which has some 50 clauses. Moreover, clause 8 had some 32 substantive articles and we were up to only the fifth one of those substantive articles. So at the rate at which we were going I do not think anyone could be in any doubt whatsoever that a filibuster of spectacular proportions was occurring and if it had continued it would have resulted in the Bill taking not just the 70 hours which the Communist Party dissolution debate took but possible 100, 200 or more hours. That was the situation we were confronting and that is the graphic way in which I chose to describe it. I think the substance of those comments still holds even if it is proved, as a result of more detailed and elaborate research, to not be a completely accurate description of comparative debates which have occurred in the past. That is all I want to say. Many more matters are to be debated today and I think we ought to get on with them. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.44) —The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, really tempts us to work out just what he is on about. If he tries to justify the statements he made previously by telling us that he did not even refer to Hansard records or make any attempt at all to get information from the officials, all I can say is that he must have worked in his usual way, off the top of his head, the streakers' defence `we will do it all on the run' and said whatever came into his head. The true situation was not about the length of debate that took place in the Senate; it was rather about the response by the public at large, the tens of thousands of petitioners who wrote to the Senate pointing out that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 was something that they did not want at all. If Mr Hawke is anything, he is a pragmatic sort of politician. He decided that once again the people did not want it and he was prepared to pull it out. Of course, it is a lot of rubbish for Senator Evans to make the stupid excuse that consideration of this legislation has taken so much time of the Senate that he has been forced to pull it out. The people of Australia realise that. They have won-they have beaten Senator Evans and the Government on this issue. It was nothing to do with the length of the debate in this place. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.46) —I think it was Humpty-dumpty who was on record as saying: `Words mean only what I say that they mean'. Senator Gareth Evans has now assumed that mantle for himself by telling the Committee that when he talks about records of the Senate he does not actually mean `records of the Senate'; he means those bits and pieces of the debate that he happened to have in mind as he got up to produce his defence against the simple point that Senator Durack made that the Minister has consistently misled the chamber and the people of Australia by making a claim about the nature of the debate which took place on the Bill of Rights legislation. At the end of the day, instead of simply accepting that he was wrong in fact and, as Senator Durack called upon him to do, to apologise to the Senate for having misled it, Senator Evans decided that the defence was to say `When I say ``records'' I do not really mean records and, anyway, if it had gone on any further I would have been right', presumably on the basis that if any prediction or assertion that one makes is left long enough and is provoked for a sufficient time, one in fact may get it right in the end. That is what Senator Evans's defence amounts to. Apart from indicating quite clearly just how spurious Senator Evans's comments are in terms of attempting to defend statements that he made which the facts do not support, I draw attention to the role that this chamber played. Senator Evans has been critical of the chamber for taking what he believes to be an excessive amount of time on this piece of legislation. It seems to me that the very purpose for which upper Houses of Parliament exist is in fact to subject to scrutiny pieces of legislation which are rushed through and, indeed, guillotined through the lower House without there being an adequate opportunity for community debate and exposure of the issues. We know the hostility which the Australian Labor Party has to this chamber. Anybody who reads Senator Evans's maiden speech in this place will recall his bold reassertion of Labor Party policy for the eventual abolition of this chamber. It is no wonder that he and the Labor Party hold to that view when we see a demonstration of an attempt by the Labor Party to impose upon the people of Australia a piece of social and political engineering which the people of Australia themselves overwhelmingly rejected and which was prevented only because of the nature, form and structure of the proceedings available to senators as elected representatives of the people of Australia. The Government was prevented from using its brute force of numbers, as it did in the House of Representatives where a piece of legislation allegedly designed to protect and enhance human rights was put through by means of a guillotine so that there could not be proper and adequate debate. I believe that, if anything, the amount of time spent on the debate on the Bill of Rights legislation, which is one of the principal factors which have led to the Government now conceding that it does not have the popular mandate and support which would be necessary to enact such a radical and significant piece of legislation, justifies the way in which this chamber has behaved in terms of its structure, form and purposes. The Labor Party has demonstrated quite clearly that it retains its hostility towards the Senate as an institution. This is why the parties on this side of the chamber will do everything in their power to protect the reputation and, indeed, the constitutional rights of the Senate to submit government legislation, no matter what government originates that legislation, to the closest degree of scrutiny. When this chamber on this occasion clearly represents the will of the people of Australia, we are entitled to take as much time as is necessary to make that point. All of the complaints and misrepresentations made by the Minister about this debate are exposed by what Senator Durack and others had to say for the sham that they constitute. Question resolved in the affirmative. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BILL 1985 HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL) AMENDMENTS BILL 1985 Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.51) —by leave-I move: That the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, as amended, and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 be reconsidered and that so much of standing orders 202 and 265 be suspended as would prevent amendments being moved to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985. God forbid, after the time we have taken to debate these Bills in their first incarnation, that we should be seeking any more time to do so. But there are a number of amendments which the Government has publicly indicated it thinks are appropriate and which we now want to take this opportunity to pursue. I might just mention in parenthesis, since the subject of time has excited so much attention this morning, that another way of putting this whole issue in context is to remind the Committee that since 1950 there have been something like 3,600 Bills debated by this chamber-an average of, say, 100 a year over that period. It proves to be the case that the human rights package is only the fourth longest debate over that period, there are still 3,596 other debates which have moved faster than this one. It may also prove to be the case,when the clerk assistant at the table finishes the task that I am now reminded that I myself asked him to embark upon some months ago, that in fact it is only since around 1950 that we have had very long debates at all following the introduction of the proportional representation which made this chamber slightly more balanced, if not in terms of its sanity at least in terms of its numbers, than was the case previously. I would be very surprised indeed-I think even Senator Durack would be surprised-if it turned out to be the case that before 1949-50 with the new representation arrangements there were debates of anything like the duration of those that occurred with the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, the Commonwealth Bank Bill and the present package that we are now talking about. I think when the statistics are finally done we will find that this debate has been, if not the longest, then the fourth longest debate in the approximately 8,600 debates that have occurred since Federation. I will not pursue that point any further. I simply seek to move the Committee's attention constructively, as I am sure it will be minded to so move, to the terms of the motion before us. I would like to put that motion in context and explain in outline terms what they are all about. I think under the circumstances and given the shortage of time and given the fact that as promised to Senator Durack some days ago I have in fact given some speaking notes to the Opposition parties, the best way of explaining what this is all about, having regard to time constraints, is to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a nine-page explanatory account of what the Government is doing in this area. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Government will propose amendments to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. I would like to set these amendments in their historical context. In 1981, the Fraser Government established the Human Rights Commission with complaint-handling, educational, promotional and research functions in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Declarations dealing with the Rights of Children, the Mentally Retarded and the Disabled. The Commission was established as a basically part-time body, with one full-time member and six to ten part-time members, including the Chairman. The Commissioner for Community Relations, who performs certain functions on behalf of the Commission under the Racial Discrimination Act, is not a member of the Commission. After its election, the Hawke Labor Government decided that the Commission should be restructured. There were four main reasons for this decision. First, the Commission acquired significant additional responsibilities under the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984. The fact that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is not a member of the Commission highlighted the anomaly which already existed under the Racial Discrimination Act and which led to the two full-time Commissioners who performed the bulk of the Commission's complaint-handling work not having a direct input into the allocation of resources and the setting of priorities within the Commission. Secondly, there was perceived to be a need to integrate the work of the Commission with the National and State Committees on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. The work of these tripartite committees, which have existed since 1973, overlaps in a number of ways with the responsibilities of the Commission. There are obvious efficiencies to be gained through streamlining and co-ordinating equal opportunity remedies whenever possible. Thirdly, the additional responsibilities which had been conferred on, or which were contemplated for, the new Commission tended to highlight the inadequacy of a structure based fundamentally on part-time membership. It is simply not possible for part-time members, heavily committed as they often are in other fields of public life, to maintain an adequate control over the day to day operations of a Commission which is responsible for handling about 2,000 complaints per year, as well as conducting a host of educational and research projects. Lastly, the development of co-operative arrangements with four of the States meant that the Commission had an effective agent in those States in the form of the relevant State Equal Opportunity body. This has enabled the Commission to concentrate more effort in those areas of Australia which do not have adequate equal opportunity legislation. These factors led the Government to form the view that the Human Rights Commission should be replaced with a small, cohesive body of full-time Commissioners. This would be the structure best adapted to handle complaints under the instruments in respect of which the Commission has responsibility, thus ensuring that Australia discharges its international human rights obligations. Bringing the Commissioner for Community Relations and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner on to the new Commission would also give them appropriate additional authority in relation to the allocation of resources within the Commission and liaison with the State bodies who act on behalf of the Commission. The establishment of the new Commission would also provide an opportunity to integrate the work of the Employment Discrimination Committees with that of the new Commission. With these matters in mind, two Bills to establish a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission were introduced in October 1984 in this House. Due to the election in December 1984, those Bills lapsed, but similar Bills were introduced into the House of Representatives in 1985. Accompanying those Bills in 1985 was the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. As mentioned previously, the Human Rights Commission already has responsibility to deal with complaints under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The basic intention behind the Bill of Rights was that citizens should not only have an administrative remedy in relation to Governmental acts and practices that infringe their rights under the Covenant, but also that there should be a remedy available in respect of laws that violate the principles of the Covenant. In this respect, the Australian Bill of Rights was intended not so much to cover new ground as to represent a further and better implementation of the International Covenant in Australia. This simple intention behind the Bill was widely misunderstood, not least of all, I regret to say, in this House. It was said by the opponents of the Bill that the International Covenant was a Communist document, though the fact is that almost every Western nation is a party to it, and that it was the Fraser Government which arranged for Australia to become a party to it. It was said that the Bill of Rights would have all sorts of adverse effects on the judiciary, on the family and on our way of life. It was frequently and patiently pointed out that such ill-effects have not occurred in any of the other Western countries which have become parties to the International Covenant and that they were hardly likely to occur in Australia. Nevertheless, as with the Murphy Bill in the mid-1970s, logic failed to prevail. Some 36 hours of debate on the Bill of Rights and associated legislation in this Chamber resulted in glacial progress on the Bill in the committee stage. In the light of the backlog of legislation awaiting the Senate's consideration, the Government reluctantly decided to withdraw the Bill. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill, which was to have made an amendment which would have been consequential to the enactment of the Australian Bill of Rights, is also to be withdrawn. At about the same time as these decisions were taken, the Government also asked the Attorney-General to look again at ways in which resources could be put to the most efficient use in the human rights area. The Attorney-General appointed a Task Force to look into this matter and report to him. In the event, the Task Force identified considerable savings which could be made by proceeding with the original proposal to streamline the work of the Human Rights Commission and the Employment Discrimination Committees. These options having been identified, the Government re- affirmed its intention to create the new Commission. As Honourable Senators will see, the proposed amendments to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bills do not subtract from the functions of the Commission or the list of instrument in respect of which those functions are to be exercised. Some of the amendments which will be proposed are designed to save money whenever possible while at the same time avoiding cutting across the thrust of the proposal to establish the new Commission. I might briefly identify those amendments. First, the size of the Commission is to be further reduced to three full-time Commissioners and a part-time President. Because of the difficulties of administration which were referred to earlier and the obvious extra expense in having a number of part-time Commissioners, the Government will move an amendment to reverse the late Senator Alan Missen's amendment inserting six part-time Commissioners. At the same time, the Government has sought to take account of Senator Missen's concerns that there be a specific focus on the Commission for each of the groups which the Commission is designed to serve. Accordingly, the Government has decided that, in addition to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Race Discrimination Commissioner (who is to replace the Commissioner for Community Relations), there should be a Human Rights Commissioner with specific responsibility in relation to the International Covenant, the three Declarations mentioned earlier, and International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111, which deals with discrimination in employment and occupation. Taken together with the advisory committees which are provided for in clause 17 of the Bill, the Government considers that the proposed new structure obviates the need for the part-time Commissioners which were proposed by Senator Missen. Another cost-saving measure relates to the determination function of the Commission. The amended Bills will ensure that the determination function of the Commission will be able to be performed by a single member where appropriate. Presently, the Sex Discrimination Act requires the Human Rights Commission to be constituted by at least three members for the purpose of making a determination under that Act. Practice has shown that many cases are of a nature that do not require three Commissioners to be present. Under the new proposals, the President will be able to appoint a single member to preside over such cases. At the same time, the President will be able to appoint two or more members to a panel in cases that raise major issues or are particularly complex. There are also a number of other amendments which the Government proposes which, although they do not relate directly to costs, should enable the Commission to operate more effectively and efficiently. The most substantial of these changes involves replacing the present complaint-handling procedures in the Racial Discrimination Act with provisions modelled on the complaint-handling procedures in the Sex Discrimination Act. The provisions in the latter Act were, of course, debated at length in the Senate in 1983 during the consideration of the then Sex Discrimination Bill. Accordingly, there does not seem to be a need to go into them in any great detail but, for the benefit of Senators, I will briefly outline the proposed new provisions. New sections 21 to 23 provide for the receipt of complaints and their transmission to the Commissioner. New sections 24 to 24e provide for the Commissioner to inquire into complaints. Where necessary, the Commissioner may seek an interim determination to preserve the status quo between the parties during the inquiry process. This may be necessary where, for example, a complainant in an employment discrimination case is threatened with dismissal. The Commissioner has the power to obtain relevant information and documents and to convene a conference of the parties. If the Commissioner is unable to resolve the matter by conciliation, there is provision for the matter to be referred to the Commission. Sections 24f to 25z deal with the powers of the Commission to inquire into matters and, if necessary, make determinations in relation to them. A determination, which cannot for constitutional reasons be binding and conclusive upon the parties, may include the finding that the respondent should compensate the complainant in various ways. If necessary, the Commission or the complainant may institute a proceeding in the Federal Court to enforce a determination (section 25za). The replacement of the procedural provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act is necessary because the present provisions have not proved effective. Presently, the Act provides for the Commissioner for Community Relations to inquire into complaints and to attempt to settle them. If complaints cannot be settled, a certificate may be issued which entitles the complainant to institute proceedings in a court. In practice, the institution of legal proceedings in a court, without any prior statement as to their rights under the Racial Discrimination Act, has proved to be beyond the financial and emotional resources of most complainants. In fact, the 11 years of the Act's operation have seen the issue of only 33 certificates, and the commencement of only one court action. The Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Jeremy Long, appointed by the Coalition Government in 1981, has recently observed that no complainant under the Racial Discrimination Act has ever succeeded in obtaining a remedy before the courts. Another compelling reason for the changes to the procedural provisions which are proposed is the administrative efficiencies which can be gained through the procedures being identical in the two major Acts for which the Commission has responsibility. Another amendment which the Government proposes relates to sub-clause 17 (1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, which deals with the appointment of advisory committees. The proposed amendment, which has been suggested by the Australian Democrats and accepted by the Government, makes it clear that the Minister must appoint at least one advisory committee. Finally, the maximum term of appointment for Commissioners is to be increased from the present five years to seven years. The longer maximum period of appointment provides a greater opportunity to secure the services of experienced and able Commissioners. Such additional flexibility in the appointment of Commissioners does not, of course, deprive the Government of the opportunity to appoint Commissioners for shorter terms. I want briefly to mention the constructive approach of the Australian Democrats to these amendments. Like the Government, they wish to see the work of the Human Rights Commission, and particularly its work in relation to race and sex discrimination, continue after 9 December (upon which date that Commission ceases to exist due to a ``sunset clause'' in the Human Rights Commission Act). They have accepted the need for urgency in relation to the amendments while at the same time they have contributed some useful suggestions for improvement. The overall purpose of these amendments is to establish a new body which will carry out Australia's international human rights obligations as efficiently and as effectively as possible. The Government is confident that the establishment of the Commission will revitalise support for human rights in Australia and hopes that the Commission, as an independent statutory authority charged with safeguarding the basic rights and freedoms of the citizen, will receive the bipartisan support that it deserves. In concluding, I want to emphasise the fact that the new Commission is an independent statutory authority and, as such, will need to determine its own priorities, within its limited resources, given the background of the domestic legislation and international instruments for which it is responsible. It will need to work out co-operative arrangements with the State Equal Opportunity Commissions on the basis of resources available and priorities set. Neither this Government nor any future Government has any right to direct the Commission in the implementation of its responsibilities and this Government certainly will not seek to do so. The Government, as well as any other organisation or individual, has a right to make a complaint to the Commission. The Government also has a right to request the Commission to make certain reports-but that is all. In the Government's view the independence of the Commission in determining its priorities and executing its functions is quite fundamental. The new Commission has an important role to play in this country and I commend these amendments to Senators. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.55) —I think this is an appropriate time to have what one might call a mini second reading debate in relation to this matter, albeit we are in Committee. Senator Gareth Evans, I suppose, will be pleased to know that there are certain time limits which will confine us, even though our remarks may be repeated over and over again. I do wish to make some general remarks in relation to what the Government is about and what the Opposition's position is in relation to that. I will speak later to the Government's amendments after they have been moved. I now want to make some general remarks about the Government's attitude to the position in which the Parliament finds itself in relation to the Human Rights Commission. It is well known that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill has inserted in it a sunset clause under which the present Commission, as it exists, expires, I think, at midnight on 9 December this year. That date has been set for nearly five years and I would have thought that the Government, with all its rhetoric about human rights, international covenants and whatever, would have moved at an earlier stage to have done something about that. The Government did in fact bring in the Bill of Rights package and I admit that that addressed this question. But since March this year, which is eight months ago, the Government has taken no moves to deal with this question of what is to be done when the term of the Commission expires. In the dying hours of this parliamentary session, and indeed in the dying hours of the Commission, the Government has reactivated the question and decided that it does not like the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Bill, which has been sitting around this place for 12 months, and it wants to make major amendments both to it and to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, which is a companion to it. The Government wants to proceed with that. The Opposition will not be opposing the reconsideration of the Bill. Indeed some further research that has been made on the Bill has motivated the Opposition to move some further amendment to it; so we, as well as the Government, wish to take that opportunity. All I can say is that I would have thought, on the Government's own rhetoric, that this would have been a matter to which it would have given a much higher priority and we would not have been under pressure, as we undoubtedly are at the moment, to hasten debate on this most important question. Senator Evans keeps emphasising that this is the fourth longest debate in this Parliament since 1950. I will not be tempted to debate that matter any further, although Senator Evans sorely tempted me. The Opposition opposed and voted against the second reading of the Human Rights Commission and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill and we will be maintaining our opposition in principle to that Bill. Although we will be moving amendments to the Bill in Committee-we did before, incidentally, and we succeeded with one major amendment which we moved-we will be voting against its third reading. In those circumstances I want to make it clear where the Opposition stands in relation to the matter of human rights in Australia and how they should be protected and enhanced. In case it may be thought by some malicious people-and heaven forbid that there are any in this chamber, but I rather suspect there may be at least some malicious comment made in this debate-that the Opposition's stance in opposing this legislation is going to leave a vacuum when the term of the Commission expires, I want to address a few remarks on what the Opposition will do about that in the short time at my disposal. We believe that Australia does not have any need to apologise to any international body for its record in the preservation and enhancement of human rights. Our record is one of the best in the world, indeed in the Free World, and it has consistently been one of the best. We do, however, reiterate our opposition to the Human Rights Commission. We believe that it was an experiment that failed and therefore we would let it die and would not set up a new body as the Government is proposing to do. Our view on that follows from the record of the Human Rights Commission. We are not necessarily criticising the Commission itself, but it is its approach and the powers that are given to it which have, in experience, proved to be, I think, unsuitable and unwise. We refer to those powers and the way they have been exercised and to the public record of the way that the Commission has propagated its own views on the content of rights. Undoubtedly some biases become exposed and in many cases with bodies such as that biases of the staff. We have concluded that it is unwise to repose such powers on a body which is really a bureaucratic structure. It is not answerable as Ministers are to the Parliament or to the public. It is certainly not like a court, yet it has its own agenda for human rights which it does propagate. The Opposition gives general support to the principles enunciated in the various international covenants, conventions and declarations that are in the package. As the Government reiterates at every opportunity, it was the Fraser Government that ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are indeed proud of the fact that we did do it. We did it in a responsible way and with responsible reservations, which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), of course, soon after he became Attorney-General, was at pains to change, and he made a long song and dance about that. But the fact is that there were grounds for having reservations and we ratified it only after full consultation and co-operation with State governments. However, we do have some reservations about that covenant. We believe that it is a good general statement of principles which, by and large, Australia has always observed and will continue to observe. If we keep a healthy, vigorous and democratic community in a traditional form, we will continue to preserve them. But we do say so with these qualifications: The principles in that covenant do not in all respects reflect Australian values. They should not supplant or be used to supplant or override the values that we sought to emphasise in the Bill of Rights debate, namely, the protection of private property, the right of choice in education and a choice to be or not to be a member of a union, among others. The principles in the conventions do suffer from serious defects. In particular, they are frequently expressed in vague, general and ambiguous terms and are internally inconsistent. Many of them deal with matters that are expressly dealt with by Federal or State laws; for example, the freedom of expression, the right to enter and leave Australia, the powers of arrest and the conduct of criminal trials. The Opposition's general approach to abuses of human rights, to defects in the laws, deficiencies and remedies, is to propose specific laws to deal with specific matters and not to adopt general, broadly expressed, ambiguously expressed codes derived from these international models which suffer from the inevitable defects of compromise, ambiguity, and preoccupations and priorities of other countries less fortunate than Australia. We support the principles that underlie the sex and race discrimination legislation. By our stand we do not in any way suggest that we are opposed to those pieces of legislation or that we would repeal them. We are unequivocally opposed to any form of discrimination based on sex or race. We do not necessarily support all the detail of that legislation or its mechanisms of enforcement. We acknowledge that in the area of sex discrimination the most careful consideration should be given to genuinely held, conscientious beliefs and to specific areas of exemption, which to some extent are dealt with in the Sex Discrimination Act but which we think probably need further amendment. However, we are entirely opposed to reposing in any type of bureaucratic body or authority the task of educating the public on human rights matters. That has been one of the deficiencies, which experience has revealed, in the way in which the Human Rights Commission has operated. It has simply given scope to the propagation of various biases of the individuals appointed to those bodies or of members of their staffs. On the other hand, the issue of human rights is certainly one for public debate. Of course, in that debate a Liberal-National Party government would accord the Attorney-General of the day a leading role and a major responsibility. On the demise of the Human Rights Commission, we agree that, if we were in government, we would make changes to the mechanisms for the enforcement of the sex and race discrimination legislation. There is already a Sex Discrimination Commissioner; a Race Discrimination Commissioner will come into existence when we pass this legislation. But, undoubtedly, further mechanisms will be required in lieu of those in the Human Rights Commission. Of course, the legislation refers to the Human Rights Commission; so necessarily amendments will be required to provide for a further mechanism of enforcement. The Racial Discrimination Act and, indirectly, the Sex Discrimination Act provide for enforcement in the courts. Of course, that would be an option that would be very seriously considered by the Opposition. Some form of parliamentary committee or other advisory committee could also be considered. At this stage we do no more than acknowledge that some mechanisms of enforcement will be required to replace some aspects of the role of the Human Rights Commission and that, if we were in government, we would address that. Had we been in government, we would have addressed it long before the time of expiry that is facing the Government and the Parliament at present. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.09) —I want to speak in terms of the general matters that Senator Durack has raised rather than to intervene in relation to any of the specifics of the amendments-with one exception that I will refer to when we come to them. Firstly, it is important to re-emphasise the point that Senator Durack made in the course of his remarks about the commitment that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have to the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, and to say that they are not in question in this debate; nor is our commitment, as the Opposition parties, to the principles enshrined in those pieces of legislation in any way under question; nor indeed are there any questions about our adherence to the most significant international human rights covenants. They have been accepted by the Opposition parties as a proper and legitimate test and as a proper and legitimate set of standards against which Australian domestic law can be judged. As Senator Durack said, ratification of the principal one of those covenants was an act of the Fraser Government. I speak, therefore, with a degree of disappointment about this legislation as one who back in 1981 participated in the debates about the establishment of the Human Rights Commission and who looked forward to its effective operation. It has to be said that it would have taken a great deal for both me and my late friend and colleague, Alan Missen, to have been brought to the point at which we were prepared to vote against the constitution of this operation had we not been profoundly disappointed at the way in which the Commission had operated in its period of existence. Quite recently, I looked back at the debates when the Commission was established and at the contributions that I, Alan Missen and a number of others made. We looked forward with a great deal of anticipation and hope to achieving some progress in establishing a better community understanding of what human rights issues were. It was with a great deal of disappointment that we saw those hopes betrayed, frustrated and indeed set at nought, essentially by the creeping practice of bureaucracy. We were disappointed-I was particularly disappointed-to see that, in moving into an area of so-called education, instead of attempting to educate Australians in any sense simply about human rights facts, the Commission in its various publications decided to embark upon certain ideological courses of its own which by their very nature were destined and doomed to divide rather than to unite community opinion. Statements were made in publications, authorised by the Commission, which were nothing more than blinkered, ideological attacks upon the system of capitalism, for instance. In one of the publications capitalism was blamed for everything-every ill and every evil. About the only thing that the capitalist system was not blamed for was the spread of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome-and I would not have been at all surprised to have seen that in the second version of the document. That sort of thing clearly does not serve to advance the community debate about human rights; rather, it serves to divide along political lines in Australia those who believe in human rights protection from those who seek to use it as a political tool and indeed as a partisan tool. The Commission, not through anything that the Parliament did or through anything that was inherent in the legislation, got itself into a situation where it developed a reputation for Star Chamber behaviour, for unreasonable decisions, for unreasonable practices and for not concentrating upon absolutely basic and fundamental issues. It took the peripheral issues which did not go centrally to human rights questions and sought, by the nature of the cases pursued and the reports put to the Parliament, to trivialise significant issues. It was even rebuked in large part by the Attorney-General on certain deportation matters, such as the various rights claimed by Australian children born of parents subject to deportation orders. The Attorney-General had to publish, in commentary upon one of the Commission's reports, his own brief statements saying basically how much he disagreed with the Commission and how he was not prepared to allow the Commission to seek to take away the fundamental rights of any government to determine who should and who should not be allowed to stay in the country once that person had acquired the status of being a prohibited non-citizen. Instead of tackling absolutely major questions about sex discrimination, racial discrimination and the adequacy of Commonwealth laws to protect human rights throughout Australia, the Commission allowed itself to become a political tool. It was used as a political tool in a number of instances concerning the domestic law of Queensland. It was quite clear that the Government at the time sought to use the Commission, not to advance the debate about human rights in Australia, but rather as a weapon in its constitutional and political clash with one of the State governments. It gives me no joy to say that a body from which I had hoped for so much at its establishment has so completely disappointed my hopes and expectations. When this legislation was first introduced and when the Opposition parties were the government parties, a number of us were prepared to take views which were quite divergent from the views of the majority of our colleagues to try to get a strong and sensible human rights regime and organisation in this country. We expected a great deal of it. We believed that, building on the substantial record which Australia had, and has always had, in the international community for its concern and protection of human rights, here was an opportunity to take that one step further. Those of us who have been involved in United Nations associations, in Amnesty International, in the International Commission of Jurists and in councils of civil liberties, and who I think cannot be accused of having a negative approach to human rights and civil liberties questions, view this debate and the point we have reached in it with enormous personal disappointment. We are convinced that we must wind up this bureaucracy and get back to the essential spirit which led us to be supporters of human rights legislation and the Human Rights Commission. The Commission has decided to allow itself to become, without resisting, a political tool in the hands of the government of the day, has trivialised many human rights issues and concerns and has failed to provide anything in the community which could substantially contribute to broadening community support for human rights, human rights instruments and international covenants. We are prepared to say that this body should be wound up. The Opposition parties in no way retreat from the support we have given to the Racial Discrimination Act, to the Sex Discrimination Act, to Australia's participation in international human rights activities or to Australia's adherence to various international human rights covenants. This is perhaps one of the most salutary lessons of what can happen when one allows great ideals to become the playthings of self-serving bureaucracies. We are determined not to allow that situation to continue. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.20) —As Senator Durack and Senator Puplick have said clearly, the Opposition fully supports the original human rights covenants. It was pointed out that these agreements took place under the Fraser Government. There is, no doubt, no question at all that there is a need in this country for a monitoring and caring of people who have discriminatory actions taken against them. However, as a result of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, and the actions of the Human Rights Commission there has been a growing concern in the public mind about exactly what is occurring. It is not entirely the fault of the commissioners. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill says that the functions of the Commission are to inquire into any act or practice that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right. We know only too well that so many people can take up that statement and believe that some human right has been breached on their behalf. The Commission made the mistake of not following its functions clearly. The Bill states: `Where the Commission considers it appropriate to do so'. The Commission could have ignored all the trivial complaints Senator Puplick was referring to, all the stuff that does not cover human rights in the basic sense in which Australians believe they should be covered. Several examples have received quite a deal of publicity. I will give one example. It involves a doctor who was taking the history of a patient asking the patient whether she was married. I am sure that if Senator Grimes were here he would say that this is a very usual question for a doctor to ask a patient. The patient took strong exception to the question and said that it was an infringement of her rights and that she would not answer the question. The doctor thought it was all a bit too stupid and claimed his right not to treat her, not to look after her, if she were not prepared to give him a full history. I have never heard of anything quite so stupid. In my husband's early career occasionally, if he asked patients `What is your problem', the smart answer was: `That is what I have come to you to find out, doctor'. His reply in those cases was usually: `I am not a vet. I happen to be a doctor'. That is probably the appropriate reply. If a patient whose history is being taken considers it to be an infringement of his human liberties to be asked by the doctor a reasonable question, the commissioners would have been justified in saying that the objection was frivolous. But that did not occur. The situation went a lot further. I have been talking to the doctor. He was fined, I think, $1,000 in damages. He was to publish a full report of the case in the medical journal as a warning to other doctors and he was to write a letter of apology to the plaintiff. I have never heard of anything so stupid. This is the sort of thing that would bring the Commission into disrepute. People see such matters as ludicrous. Because of the Sex Discrimination Bill marital status must not be used to discriminate. If a doctor, in taking a history, cannot ask about marital history the whole thing is stupid. Senator Sheil —He might be asking that to protect her privacy. Senator WALTERS —He may well be. Senator Sheil knows that that question is normally asked in taking a history. There is another well publicised case of a doctor wanting to rent out accommodation and objecting to renting to the people who had sought the accommodation on the grounds that he did not believe that he should be forced to rent to people whose beliefs he opposed. The Commission has not responded in a responsible manner to such situations. I believe the community has that view. I will now consider the educative role of the Commission. Clause 11 (h) of the Bill, which deals with functions of the Commission, provides: To undertake research and educational programs and other programs, on behalf of the Commonwealth, for the purpose of promoting human rights, and to co-ordinate any such programs undertaken by any other persons or authorities on behalf of the Commonwealth; I have one of the books put out by the Human Rights Commission. On page 2 it says that small grants should be made to teachers who take up some of the programs. It states: The materials published so far have always been seen as a beginning and not as an end. The Human Rights Commission is now sponsoring in close collaboration with respective education authorities a small grants program under which schools and their teachers are invited to explore human rights issues in their classes. It then says: Whatever it is teachers choose to do the Human Rights Commission will pay $500 or $1000 for a 2-term project to those who contract to take part and who can report in detail on the ideas and activities and resources which prove most creative in practice. That money was not going to the school but into the pockets of the teachers concerned. The Human Rights Commission was offering to pay teachers a certain amount of money if they taught the programs in their schools. I will read from a later section in the book because it advises teachers on how to go about teaching some of the work. It says: In the first few weeks of the school year the teacher can challenge some of the learned behaviours that do not seem to encourage children's rights and by careful selection expose children to a wide and varied range of positive thinking about themselves and others. That sounds very good, but then it goes on: Children come to school with some fairly set ideas. A lot of these are sex role stereotypes. A lot of work has been done and has got to be done with non-sexist education with the class to begin the human rights integrated approach. This should be done in the first four weeks of the school year. The particular grade in mind for the unit of work in this approach is first grade but mood of the ideas should be used with kindergarten. The book says that the first four weeks that a little girl or boy arrives at school in kindergarten are the most important four weeks in getting to that child to change the sex stereotype roles that that child may have learned at home. The book goes on to tell the teachers how this can be done. It says: The teacher can make rules, for example, no one plays with the cars unless there are equal boys and girls playing with the cars in the kindergarten corner or the paper dolls don't go out unless one boy at least is in the group. That means that little girls cannot play with paper dolls unless they can talk one of the little boys into also playing with the paper dolls. Senator Georges —What are you talking about? I have been listening to you for the last 10 minutes. Senator WALTERS —This is what the honourable senator's Commission is doing. If the honourable senator had been listening he would know that I am describing some of the teaching that has been put into the schools. The Commission talked teachers into using the program by offering to pay them money-in their pockets, not to the school-to use this sort of nonsense. If I were Senator Georges I too would be saying: `What on earth are you talking about? This could not possibly be the case'. But suggestions have been given to teachers that if they want to change a little girl's thinking that mummy stays home and looks after her they do not allow her to play with dolls unless a boy plays with them and they do not allow boys to play with cars unless an equal number of boys and girls play with the cars. I have never heard of anything quite so stupid. I am quite sure that Senator Georges would agree with me. That is why he is saying: `What on earth are you talking about?' The mind boggles. This is ludicrous. There is much more that the Commission has been doing which really has no part of what its function should be. I oppose very strongly the suggestion that a commission should have such a function and that it can get its programs into the schools-into the kindergarten areas-and tell our children that they cannot and should not look upon the family as the norm; that they must be taught in the first four weeks of their schooling in kindergarten that what they have experienced at home is all wrong; and that they have to be taught something totally different. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(12.35) —I welcome the removal of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill from the Notice Paper. Despite the lyrical descriptions given by other senators that they were attending the funeral of the Bill of Rights and that they wanted to be pall-bearers, grave-diggers or executioners, I remind them that the Bill of Rights is not yet dead. It has been sent to the Australian Constitutional Commission for consideration. Senator Georges —It is dead. Senator SHEIL —No, it will come back. It will raise its hoary head here again and we will be called upon to gird our loins and fight it again. I turn my attention to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. The real question raised by these Bills is why Australia needs this quasi-legal Commission to administer sections of civil law. If the Government wishes to legislate to prevent so-called racial discrimination or sex discrimination, ordinarily one would expect it to do so and then leave the legislation for the courts to interpret, as is the case with all of our other laws. Clearly, the reason why the legal practices and traditions of our Commonwealth are being dispensed with is central to the real purpose of the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The only reason that this Government could want to continue to extend the farce that is the Human Rights Commission-the existing Human Rights Commission-with this legislation, is that it deliberately wants to circumvent the basis of common law and our legal system. I see this happening more and more with legislation in this day and age. The fact that it is not enough to leave sex and race discrimination legislation to the courts clearly indicates that this Government does not want the due process of law to apply. Under our legal system, accusations cannot be made lightly or maliciously; the accused is regarded as innocent until proven guilty; the accused is entitled to remain silent and not incriminate himself or herself and is entitled to legal representation; and adjudication between the prosecution and defence cases is performed by an impartial third party. Since by enacting this Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation the legal system is to be circumvented, logically the Government intends that all these principles are to be circumvented. An examination of the performance of the existing Human Rights Commission and the proposed workings of the new Commission reveals that this is exactly the case. In practice, the new Commission will have more in common with the Spanish Inquisition than with any part of British legal tradition. In the first place, none of the safeguards of law will protect the accused, and the Commission will have great discretion in accepting charges. None of the sworn affidavits and formal lodging of accusations will be required. A phone call or a scribbled paragraph is all that is required to finger people. Senator Georges —Is this a second reading speech at the Committee stage? Senator SHEIL —As there has been a long delay, Senator, I am recalling to you the purposes and effects of the legislation. It will not take long. As in Soviet Russia, on the whispered denunciation of a spiteful neighbour, hapless citizens will be dragged before the Commission's tribunals to answer for imagined crimes. Unlike civil law, where a litigant must prove the case against the accused, the Commission itself will gather evidence against its victims, with Commission agents secretly spying on people to gather further proof of sexist of racist proclivities. Once denounced to the tribunals, the accused will then be forced to prove his or her innocence. The onus of proof, fundamental to our legal system, will be reversed and defendants will be regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Unlike our legal system, those summoned to answer charges will have no right to legal representation, and will be forced to defend themselves against their inquisitors. There will be no right for the accused to remain silent, and severe penal provisions will be enforced to coerce people to incriminate themselves. Those judged to have answered unsatisfactorily by the Commission's star chambers will also be punished by them. Unlike our measured and cautious legal system, the Commission will be policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury-the swift dispenser of revolutionary justice. It will do this to people for crimes that are real or imagined-a system all too familiar to new Australians who have fled socialist tyranny. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you actually believe all of this? Senator SHEIL —I will give the Minister examples of how it has already happened under the Human Rights Commission in Australia. As for the concept of an impartial judiciary-which has been questioned today-so central to our time-honoured British legal tradition, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have none of it. The bias and even political bigotry of the present Human Rights Commissioner can be expected to be proudly continued by its successor. Decisions such as the recommendation that homosexual relationships should form a basis for immigration entitlement and the banning of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) from Human Rights Commission offices because he dared to criticise it are evidence of this. In one case, the bias of the Commission was so gross that an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia against a Commission decision resulted in it being overturned, with the judge commenting that the Commission's black agent was herself biased against whites! Recently in Queensland an unemployed girl was given a chance of a job under the community employment program and abused her employer-benefactor by stealing from him. As a result she was sacked, but then pursued a grudge claim of sexual harassment and was awarded $7,000 against her former employer. As a quasi-judicial body the Human Rights Commission is worse than a farce, and its successor, that this legislation will create, will pervert justice even further. Indeed, even the name `Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission' is a calculated misnomer, to be ranked with the Orwellian `Ministry of Love' in 1984. Clearly, the real role of the so-called Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is nothing to do with protecting rights and everything to do with changing and subverting society. The Commission can be regarded by right-thinking people only as an insidious thought police, empowered to abrogate common law and common liberty to undermine traditional community attitudes and values. Already newspeak terms such as `salesperson' and `spokesperson' have been foisted upon us. A few years ago such ludicrous terms would have drawn guffaws of laughter, but today people are being forced to use them. Ultimately the target of this Pol Pot style social engineering is the family, which is deeply resented by feminists and opposed by the hardcore Left as an obstacle to the state. While the family exists as the basic unit of society, children will receive much of their moral and political education from their parents rather than the state. Only when the family and the church are dissolved will the individual be fully accessible to propaganda. The real role of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is to function as big Bob's thought police, to help undermine traditional attitudes and values by persuasion or coercion, and ultimately form another stone in the edifice of the socialist state. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.44) —I would not wish the brevity of my reply to be seen in any way as an acknowledgment of the accuracy of the charges that have been made with varying degrees of enthusiasm and rhetorical colour about the existing Human Rights Commission by those who have spoken so far. Let me simply say that I do not accept that the Commission concept should be in any way regarded as a failure as a result of the experience of the last five years under the body created by the Liberal Government. I do not accept that harm has been caused in any way by the procedures applied by the present Commission. I do not accept that human rights have been in any way put at risk by the activities of the Commission. I do not accept that the Human Rights Commission-I do not think any reasonable Australian could accept-has trivialised human rights in the way in which Senator Puplick, among others, has suggested. I do not accept that the Commission, or any of the publications produced by it, should be regarded as activated by or redolent of political bias. I certainly will acknowledge that some aspects of the Commission have not worked especially well in recent times. I further acknowledge that there have been some findings of the Commission with which I and the Government certainly would not agree. I accept what Senator Puplick said on the deportation issue and some of the findings that were made in that regard. But I make the point very briskly that some differences of view are inevitable in areas of the high degree of sensitivity and lively public interest with which the Commission deals. The work of the Commission is highly regarded internationally. The best demonstration of that which has come to my notice has been in the last 24 hours, concerning Mr Ralph Pettman, the author of the book that has been the subject of so many canards over recent times, and which was again given a run by Senator Walters-as, no doubt, she will again later when we consider the amendments. Mr Pettman has just been awarded an honourable mention in the international United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation prize for the teaching of human rights. I make the further point-- Senator Walters —Now I am really worried. Senator GARETH EVANS —I thought the honourable senator would be impressed by that. Mr Pettman received a letter from Mr M'Bow, the head of that Organisation. I finally make the point that to the extent that the Opposition does not like what the Commission has done, it should recall that with the exception of the most recently appointed single member, who was appointed just a few months ago, its membership in that whole period has been wholly the creation of the Liberal Government of 1981. We acknowledge that there have been some problems with the organisation and so on of the body. That is why we have brought legislation forward to reshape and to streamline it and to give it newly identified roles and functions. That is what the remainder of this debate will be about as we look in detail to the amendments that will address those particular problems. Consideration interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Gietzelt should be directed to the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes. I also inform the Senate that Senator Gietzelt is attending a funeral and that that is the circumstance which has led to his absence. Senator CHANEY —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in that capacity and as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to his previously expressed acknowledgment of the desirability of achieving greater flexibility in wages determination. I ask: Does the Minister believe that this week's decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission granting an across the board 2.3 per cent flow on to workers covered by the Pastoral Industry Award is the very antithesis of a flexible system? In other words, does he support a decision which allows for identical across the board percentage wage increases to be paid by industries and enterprises making profits as well as by farmers with net incomes of about $3,500 a year who are subject to subsidised competition and falling world prices, about 12,000 of whom are facing imminent bankruptcy? Does the Minister agree that the decision shows a lamentable lack of flexibility and will be damaging to the economic recovery of this country? Senator BUTTON —This question is asking me to substitute my judgment, on the basis of no particular knowledge of the facts, for the judgment which has been made by the Arbitration Commission. Let me say that in general circumstances one regrets additional cost burdens being imposed on any sector of industry, but the fact of the matter is that the procedures which were adopted by the Arbitration Commission were procedures which gave a forum for the issue of the capacity of that sector of industry to pay, and the procedures were really directed to whether a national wage case decision should flow on to a particular sector in the light of particular circumstances applying in that sector. The Arbitration Commission made a judgment about that. I am not familiar with all the facts which the Arbitration Commission took into account and, therefore, I am not able to make any different judgment from that which was made. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the article on the front page of the Australian Financial Review this morning headed `Trouble at the Wheat Board as executives leave'. Is it true that the Australian Wheat Board is undergoing an upheaval in its staffing? Is it true that anomalies in the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 have surfaced between the wheatgrowers, who have control over the Board, and the commercial needs of selling wheat on the world market? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report in question which is apparently jointly authored by Angela Mackay and Sarah Sargent. The first thing that should be said about it is that it is a bit of a beat up. Indeed, in a letter to the Australian Financial Review some months ago an agricultural economist at Melbourne University, Dr Alistair Watson, in reply to a previous criticism of Sarah Sargent-a previous critic having said that Sarah Sargent took an overly academic approach to a number of matters-said that nobody who knows Sarah Sargent would accuse her of taking an academic approach to anything, which I think was probably fair comment. As to the substance of the article as distinct from the style, the Government's Wheat Marketing Act 1984 was designed to make the Board a more flexible operation and in particular to get more commercial expertise on to the Board. The legislation reflected that desire. That has happened, although it is true that the Opposition in the Senate prevented the Government from making all the changes of that type that it wished to. I do not think there is any real evidence of the sorts of problems that are alleged in this morning's Australian Financial Review and in particular it should be noted that the Wheat Board since being given permission to borrow overseas in 1983, if I remember correctly, is a very substantial overseas borrower and has retained its highest rank of credit rating because it is a short term borrower as distinct from the Government which, when borrowing overseas, of course, tends to be a long term borrower. I understand that Mr Kerin, under statutory marketing reform, has given approval to changes to the Act which will enable the Board to compete in the labour market for its staff and which has strengthened the Board's accountability to the wheat farmers who, in the end, pay for its operation. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer the Minister to the statement issued last night by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs about the Government's latest manoeuvring in its determination to get rid of the Director of the Australian War Memorial. Can the Minister summarise for the Senate the nature of the legal advice received from the Solicitor-General and Mr Graham, QC which led to the Government's decision? What, in practical terms, is meant by the expression `paying due regard to the principles of natural justice' which Senator Gietzelt used to describe the way the Director's response to questions would be handled? Finally, how can Air Vice-Marshal Flemming be said to have been accorded the principles of natural justice without the opportunity, still denied, for him or his legal advisers to question those making accusations against him? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think it would be appropriate to go into the details, certainly not all the details, of the advice that has been rendered to the Government by both Mr Douglas Graham, QC and the Solicitor- General on this matter, but I think the relevant aspects of it that Senator Lewis has expressed concern about can probably be summarised as follows: It is clear that the rules of natural justice must be observed in the exercise of a power such as that conferred by sub-section 24 (1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980-dismissal for misbehaviour. There is no doubt about that. Those rules will require that the Director be informed of the grounds upon which it is contemplated that his appointment may be terminated and those rules also require that he be afforded a fair opportunity to be heard and to put forward both his response to those grounds and any other matters which he may wish to advance as reasons why the power of termination should not be exercised. There is a quite substantial body of law as to what the rules of natural justice mean in this kind of context. The requirement is simply, as I have said, that a person be afforded fair opportunity to be heard and to put forward matters which he may wish to advance as appropriate reasons. So far as I am aware-I do not think there is any suggestion to the contrary in the advice from the lawyers concerned-that does not require oral examination of witnesses, particularly not in a circumstance where there may not be any oral testimony of other witnesses to be taken into account. I do not want to comment any further beyond that because that gets us into essentially legal argument. I simply make the point that it is something that can be perfectly well objectively tested on the basis of the substantial body of authority which exists as to what the requirements and rules of natural justice are. There are a number of ways further in which the requirements of natural justice may be physically satisfied in terms of hearing arrangements. One such way that Senator Gietzelt has indicated and that the Government proposes to follow is the appointment of an appropriately qualified senior person to receive the representations that the director may wish to make and then to report to the Governor-General in Council on the basis of his findings, having heard those representations. As I say, this is the course the Government has chosen to follow; it is a course that is entirely proper and consistent in terms of the applicable law and practice and it is certainly not a course such as should attract any reasoned criticism from the Opposition. I just add by way of further parenthesis that any suggestion that previous inquiries may have been somehow at fault and, in particular, that Mr Jones may be somehow at fault for not having afforded opportunities to do various things that might count as natural justice is to completely misunderstand the nature of the investigation upon which Mr Jones and others before him have embarked. Mr Jones was not, by his terms of reference, specifically charged with the function of determining whether or not the Director had been guilty of misbehaviour within the meaning of sub-section 24 (1) of the Act. His inquiry was essentially a wide-ranging investigation commissioned not by the Executive Government but by the War Memorial Council. Under those circumstances it is entirely understandable that he did not address the substantive question of misbehaviour at all-certainly not in any reasoned way-and did not engage in the sorts of procedures that are now being contemplated by the Government. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question which is more for clarification. Is the Minister saying that it is the advice to the Government or his own view-I am not sure which-that it is not necessarily a principle of natural justice that the person accused is entitled to question those making accusations against him? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to go into the details of the matter. It is my understanding of the advice that has been received that that is probably so, but essentially it is a matter for the person conducting the hearing, the representations. I do not want to go on record as retailing the details of advice. It is a matter for the Government, not me here and now, to determine what and when information should be released. Clearly that is confidential at the moment. It is something that Senator Lewis can look up himself. I would be happy to arrange for a list of authorities that are relevant, if he still knows where to find them, so that he can sort out the matter himself. It is a matter of law what the requirements of natural justice are and if they are not fully satisfied in a way that is likely to survive subsequent legal scrutiny obviously remedies will be available. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. It has been reported that overseas students wishing to attend the University College of the Northern Territory have been denied visas. If this is a fact, will the Minister explain why the Government has taken this action? Senator RYAN —I saw some newspaper reports to that effect. It is certainly not the case that the Government has made any decisions on visas relating to students who wish to enrol at the University College that the Northern Territory Government is establishing. I should point out that the decision of the Northern Territory Government to proceed with the establishment of this college on its own terms has some serious consequences for the education of Territorians and it raises a number of policy issues including the entry of overseas students. Those issues are being addressed. We have not made any decision to deny visas to overseas students. I have decided that, as a Territory funded education establishment, the college will be regarded in the same way as a technical and further education college or a government secondary school for the purposes of accepting full costs of overseas students. That is, the relevant Territory authority will be required to notify the Overseas Student Office of the courses it intends to offer to students and the Office will register those courses. The fact that that process has not yet occurred may have led to some potential students making inquiries at overseas posts being advised by immigration officials that visas could not be issued. The registration process is a safeguard against non-bona fide students claiming enrolment in courses or at institutions which do not have the appropriate degree of government recognition. Our Government has expressed its commitment in several ways to the orderly development of the export of education services, to the mutual benefit of Australian and overseas students. We do not intend to thwart entrepreneurial enterprise on the part of institutions where this does not impinge on other aspects of government policy. The University College in Darwin has been informed about these arrangements. As soon as the Overseas Student Office has been notified of the courses the Territory authority intends to be offered by this college, the courses will be registered and the visa application procedures can occur in the normal way. Senator VIGOR —I draw the attention of the Minister for Finance who represents the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters to the landmark out of court settlement involving Mrs Joy Hart relating to health problems caused by tobacco smoke in a telephone switch room. Has the Government examined the implications of this case for its workers compensation and invalidity payments scheme? Will the Government now be expediting moves towards the creation of a smoke-free work place within the whole of the Public Service? Senator WALSH —The Public Service Board has, for some time, been pursuing measures that are aimed at minimising, if not eliminating, the amount of smoking that goes on in government offices. That is the answer to the second part of the question. The answer to the first part of the question about workers compensation and invalidity payments is that to my knowledge there has been no quantification done of the likely effects. Senator COLEMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, relates to allegations by the Opposition spokesman on veterans' affairs, Mr Tim Fischer, in this morning's Press that Cabinet had `dumped' Senator Gietzelt in his efforts to clean up the administration of the Australian War Memorial. Will the Minister comment on that statement? Senator GARETH EVANS —One never ceases to be amazed as to how members of the Opposition and particularly, I understand, Mr Fischer, the Opposition spokesman on veterans' affairs-not that I have taken much notice of anything he has said in the past-continue to get things muddled and wrong. Although I have not seen the detailed text of what he may or may not have had to say yesterday, I have certainly seen how it was reported in the Canberra Times this morning. I say for the record on behalf of the Government-not just on behalf of Senator Gietzelt in this respect-that any suggestion that the Government has dumped Senator Gietzelt in pursuing a course that I have just described in answer to Senator Lewis's question is totally misconceived. It was essentially on Senator Gietzelt's initiative that advice was sought and received from an eminent QC and the Solicitor-General as to the way in which this matter might properly and appropriately be taken further given the clearly unresolved difficulties that presently exist at the War Memorial. I have described the nature of that advice to the extent I think it is appropriate to do so. The nature of the course of motion which the Government is taking has been made clear in statements that have been made over the last 24 hours. The course that has been taken is, as I have said, one that is entirely consistent with the course that Senator Gietzelt engaged in trying to untangle what was clearly becoming an increasingly unsatisfactory situation at the Memorial. Senator COLLARD —My question is also addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the legal advice given to the Government by a prominent Queen's Counsel and the Solicitor-General regarding the difficult situation or the debacle that the Government is in over the Australian War Memorial. What is the particular question of concern regarding the administration of the Australian War Memorial referred to by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in his statement last night and a response to which will be sought from Air Vice-Marshal Flemming? How is any conflict between Air Vice-Marshal Flemming and the person or persons making the allegation to be resolved? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a matter on which I do not think it is appropriate to comment further at this stage. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an article in the Adelaide News on 17 November which referred to comments by the honourable member for O'Connor regarding the Australia Card? Do his statements of opposition to the effects of the card on cash payments amount to condoning tax evasion? Senator WALSH —I did last week see the article in question. Originally I thought that a hoax Press release must have been issued, but apparently that is not the case. Evidently, or as far as I know, Mr Tuckey has been accurately reported. He said among other things that-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, before the Minister comments any further, I rise on a point of order. I think to suggest that a member of this Parliament was condoning tax evasion would in fact be a breach of the Standing Orders. It clearly would be a quite improper thing to do. I think such an allegation should not be permitted to be made against a member of this Parliament. Senator Peter Baume —It is illegal. Senator Chaney —It is illegal. We are talking about illegalities, Mr President; we are not talking about tax avoidance. I believe that the question is probably out of order and certainly any answer of the sort which is invited would be out of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will allow the answer to be given at this stage. But I ask the Minister to keep in mind standing order 418 in replying to the question. I will listen to the Minister with interest. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I think the facts speak for themselves. I was about to draw attention to some of the things which Mr Tuckey said. I can understand why Senator Chaney would not like to have them broadcast to a wider audience than readers of the Adelaide News. Mr Tuckey is reported-accurately, so far as I know-as saying that if and when the Australia Card is introduced the identity number of the card would identify interest received by bank depositors, shareholders and even, horror of horrors, `cash-starved farmers who sell a load of grain for cash to help their family. He was complaining that people who receive interest income and dividends and farmers who want to sell off a load of grain for cash would actually have to pay tax on the proceeds after the Australia Card was introduced. That, of course, is one of the reasons why the Australia Card must be introduced. People who have been getting income in this way in the past and not paying tax on it are not entitled to do that and they should be forced to pay the tax which they have always been obliged to pay. Of course, as long as people like that or any other group are allowed to evade their tax liabilities by not declaring taxable income, honest pay as you earn taxpayers will have to pay more tax than they otherwise would have to do. Of course, that strikes at the heart of the reason for the introduction of the Australia Card-that is, to ensure that everybody pays their fair share of tax. It is about fairness. Mr Tuckey is complaining about fairness. He is complaining that the poor, cash-starved farmer who flogs off a load of wheat and does not declare it will no longer be able to evade paying tax on it. Why stop at one load? Why not 10, 50 or 100? If one is going to condone the perpetuation of a system which allows somebody to flog off one load of grain without declaring the income and paying the tax which may be due on that income, one is leaving the system wide open to flog off 10, 20 or 100 loads of grain or whatever. Indeed, it would seem to me that Mr Tuckey yearns for the bad old days-or the good old days as he probably sees it-some time ago, to which I referred in the Senate last week. Some years ago stock agents like Elder Smith, even before John Elliott took that company over, used to bring a gladstone bag full of bank notes along to the pig sales at Merredin, which is near where I came from, and hand over the cash to the people who were selling pigs. The sellers were using such imaginative names as Bob Menzies, Ned Kelly and so on. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is clearly getting into the realm of debate. I suggest that he come back to the question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I would ask Ministers to reduce the length of their answers. I also ask the Minister to heed that request. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. The fact is that the law now requires people who receive income from the sources identified by Mr Tuckey to report that income. There is no doubt that some of them do not. The degree to which tax is evaded through non-declaration of that sort of income of course is much less certain. But there is no doubt that some people do not declare that income. Consequently, PAYE taxpayers have to pay more tax than they ought to be paying and it is precisely that problem at which the Australia Card is aimed-that is, ensuring that everybody who receives income which they now have a legal obligation to declare for taxation purposes will be caught if they do not declare it, will be found out and made to pay the tax that they should pay. It is all about fairness. Mr Tuckey is clearly opposed to that. He is certainly condoning tax evasion, arguing that tax evasion should be legitimised, accepted and, indeed, perpetuated. I look forward, though rather forlornly, to Mr Tuckey being rebuked by his Leader for having done that. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the Government's decision that there will be no mining within stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. In fairness to the mining companies which have spent millions of dollars exploring within the park and which have been given undertakings in the past regarding their rights to explore and develop their interests, does the Government intend to compensate these companies for the considerable actual and prospective losses they will suffer because of the Government's decision? Senator GARETH EVANS —No. Senator BLACK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance as Minister representing the Treasurer and the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to news reports of a speech by the President of the National Farmers Federation, Ian McLachlan, to the NFF's half-yearly conference in which he called for government action to bring down interest rates? What would be the implications of dramatic action by the Federal Government to cut interest rates by 5 per cent in two months, as proposed by the President of the NFF? Senator WALSH —I have seen some reports of Mr McLachlan's speech. It is not entirely clear to me what he is advocating but it would appear that he is advocating action by the Reserve Bank of Australia which would bring interest rates down. One way in which that could be done would be for the Reserve Bank to buy, on a large scale, government bonds, thereby pushing up the market price of the bond and pushing down the yield on the bond. It could be expected that that sort of action would flow through to lower interest rates. That conceptually is a policy of printing money. I guess if one prints enough money, money becomes a free good and the rate of interest on that free good would fall to something like zero, as would the value of the currency if pushed far enough. That seems to be essentially what Mr McLachlan is advocating. If a substantial move in that direction were to be initiated by the Reserve Bank, it is most inevitable-I think one could probably say `inevitable', to be more absolute-that the value of the Australian dollar would tumble; it may even collapse. That would have a number of consequences. For a start, it would absolutely finish off those farmers who were persuaded, or who decided, to borrow money denominated in foreign currencies. There are quite a few of them already in trouble for that reason. Another major fall in the value of the Australian dollar would vastly increase, in Australian dollar terms, their liabilities and push them into insolvency. The number of farmers who have done that is not known to me but it appears to have been quite significant. Mr McLachlan's policies would finish them off pronto. The Government and, to the best of my knowledge, the Reserve Bank are pursuing a policy which will bring interest rates down over time in a way which is sustainable without incurring the pernicious side effects which the policy being advocated by Mr McLachlan would produce. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to his reaffirmation yesterday of the Government's intention to extend Kakadu National Park into stage 3 and its plan to `have some further extensions ready to go on the World Heritage List' in time for the World Heritage Committee meeting next year, at the latest. Does the Minister recall whether he said, during the hearings of Estimates Committee E on 18 September last, in relation to the proposed stage 3 of Kakadu National Park, that there would be: . . . a probably greater quantitative involvement of the private sector pursuing exploration licences in the ordinary way. Would that be part of the mineral assessment of that area which, at that stage according to Government policy, should be pursued before any further decision was made about stage 3? Is that still the policy of the Government? If not, what is now proposed to be done by the Government as far as the mineral assessment of stage 3 is concerned? Is the Minister seriously suggesting that a proper assessment of the mineral resources of proposed stage 3 can be completed in the timetable he has laid down? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Durack can curb his impatience for about two more weeks, all will be revealed. Senator DEVLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Is the Minister aware of an article in today's Australian Financial Review titled `Plastics poised for take-off', which reports on the view of the Plastics Institute of Australia Inc. that the Government's decision to reduce tariffs on imported chemicals will boost growth in the Australian plastics industry? Does the Minister agree with this assessment? What are the likely growth prospects for the industry? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the article and, of course, it is an important comment following the Government's decision about reduction in assistance to the chemicals and plastics industry. According to the Plastics Institute of Australia, the plastics industry can expect major cost reductions in resins as a result of that decision and as a result of the Government's decisions relating to the industry generally. The plastics industry has recorded a steady growth in the last three years. In 1984 the growth in volume terms was 11 per cent, in 1985 it was 10 per cent and in 1986 it was 10 per cent. Over the past 15 months innovation, changing cost structures and changing fashions have contributed to this growth record. The industry is now worth $3 billion per annum and involves about 4,000 companies and employs about 80,000 people. Following the announcement of a phased reduction in tariffs over three or five years, com- mencing on 1 February 1987, the industry anticipates a significant rise in employment in future years. The Executive Director of the Plastics Institute of Australia is reported as saying: . . . we believe that there is a well-founded confidence for the future of the Australian plastics industry. I share that confidence and hope that the industry achieves strong growth in the future. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the answers he gave earlier in Question Time to Senator Lewis and Senator Collard. I ask him: Does the Government maintain that a dismissal by the Governor-General after the principles of natural justice have been satisfied will completely terminate Air Vice-Marshal Flemming's rights, or will he still be able to challenge the dismissal in the courts on the grounds that he was not guilty of misbehaviour under the Australian War Memorial Act 1980? Senator GARETH EVANS —To answer that question would be to give a legal opinion, and I do not think that is something that is appropriate for me or any other Minister to do in that situation. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister aware that France and the United States have joined a group of 19 South Pacific nations and territories in a new convention, the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, to outlaw sea dumping of nuclear wastes and other forms of pollution in the region? If so, what is the Government's reaction to the convention and what steps can Australia take further to promote at the international level co-operation for the protection of the environment in the South Pacific? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday was a very important day for the South Pacific region because yesterday representatives of the countries of the South Pacific region, France and the United States, meeting in Noumea, agreed to adopt the text of a Convention for the Protection and Development of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region, the so-called SPREP Convention. The conference also adopted two protocols relating to the prevention of sea dumping of radioactive wastes in the convention area and co-operation in combatting pollution emergencies. The area to which the convention will apply will generally comprise the 200-nautical mile zones off all South Pacific countries and territories of France and the United States of America in the region, together with all areas of the high seas enclosed by those 200-nautical mile zones. The convention does provide a significant international regime for the protection of the marine environment in the South Pacific and a treaty guarantee that no sea dumping of radioactive wastes will take place in the region. The SPREP Convention will thus complement and reinforce the prohibition of the Treaty of Rarotonga on radioactive waste dumping at sea in the South Pacific nuclear free zone. Overall the result is a significant regional achievement to which Australia, it should be acknowledged, has made an important and sustained contribution. Important, and in some respects, conflicting national interests and policies were involved for all participants and the adoption of the text has widely and appropriately been hailed as a victory for good neighbourliness. The Government intends to sign the convention as soon as Ministers have had a chance to examine the final adopted convention. The Minister for Foreign Affairs wishes to take this occasion to acknowledge the efforts of his colleague, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, in successfully bringing Australia into the convention in terms of existing State and Federal legislation. As to the very last part of Senator Sibraa's question, I add that the most immediate thing Australia could do to advance the causes so treated yesterday would be now to ratify, and fast, the Treaty of Rarotonga, and, by so doing, bring that Treaty into force to the great benefit of the whole Pacific region, and encourage the nuclear weapons states to sign the associated protocols. That ratification is presently awaiting, as honourable senators will know, the passage through this chamber of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, and failure to meet our objective of passing that legislation within the next few days would stand very oddly with the strong support for the purposes of the Treaty which has been expressed by most honourable senators in this place. Senator POWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is the Minister aware of the results of a survey by the Real Estate Institute of Australia and mortgage insurer Mortgage Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Australia Ltd, which shows that the average Australian family's ability to afford a home loan decreased in the June quarter, particularly in Victoria? What does the Minister think will happen to the level of home ownership, given that the national ratio of average home repayments to median weekly family income increased from 21.3 per cent to 26.5 per cent over the same quarter and that that survey defines affordability on the basis that a family can generally afford about 25 per cent of its gross income to meet its shelter needs? Does the Minister agree that the level of home ownership is going to fall dramatically in response to continuing high interest rates, bank pressure for further deregulation, with the National Australia Bank Ltd already charging 17.5 per cent-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is getting far too long. I ask her to bring it to a conclusion. Senator POWELL —It is concluded, Mr President, with the addition of `and the Government's wages policy of reducing in real terms the gross income of average Australian income households?' Senator RYAN —No, the Government does not expect that the home ownership figures will fall in the way that Senator Powell's question suggested. A strong recovery in lending for housing by the savings banks has occurred in response to the housing finance measures announced by the Government on 2 April. The total value of housing loan commitments by savings banks fell by 11 per cent in August but it was 74 per cent higher than for March. It is now expected that total savings bank lending for housing in 1986-87 will be considerably higher than their commitment under the 2 April package. On present indications, total lending for housing by banks and permanent building societies will increase by about 5 per cent, to total approximately $10,800m for 1986-87. The Government has retained the 13.5 per cent interest rate ceiling for existing borrowers from banks. It was essential to deregulate interest rates for new borrowers if savings banks were to raise new deposits and fund more housing loans. Most banks have raised the rates for new loans to 15.5 per cent. However, the Government's budgetary strategy for 1986-87 provides an environment conducive to achieving lower interest rates. To facilitate access to home ownership in a deregulated environment, the banks are promoting low start loan options. They have also freed up lending criteria and discontinued the use of cocktail loans. Senator COOK —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the September quarter national accounts released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today? What light do these figures shed on the current position of the Australian economy? Will the instability of the leadership of the Western Australian Liberal Party have an adverse effect upon our future economic performance? Senator WALSH —It is true that the first domino rolled in Perth yesterday. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. It is quite obvious that the second part of that question is totally out of order. Whilst Senator Cook is known for his amusing character in here rather than for his knowledge or other contribution, I suggest that you rule that second part of the question out of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. I think that the second part of the question is in order, but I doubt whether the answer that is forthcoming will be in order. I will listen with a great deal of interest. Senator WALSH —Mr President, since you have ruled the second part of the question in order, let me say that I find it difficult to see how the leadership of the Opposition in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia or the national Parliament or changes in those leaderships are likely to have much impact at all on the prospects for the Australian economy because of the very remote possibility of any of those Opposition leaders being transformed into Premiers or Prime Ministers. The first domino has rolled and I guess that the ones in Melbourne and Canberra will follow quickly, and maybe the one in Brisbane, although probably nobody is interested in that. I have seen the quarterly national accounts. Among other things, they show that in real seasonally adjusted terms there was a 6.6 per cent increase in fixed capital investment between the June quarter and the September quarter. So, the strenuous efforts of some people to talk the economy down apparently have not been successful, although it is correct to say that most of that 6.6 per cent real increase is concentrated on buildings and structures. Export volumes increased by 2.4 per cent in the September quarter and net exports contributed 0.4 percentage points to growth in gross domestic product. The GDP grew by only a small 0.2 percentage point in the quarter, but it is very important to note that an important factor holding that figure down was the $543m rundown in non-farm stocks, or the equivalent of 1.1 per cent of growth. Of course, there is a limit to the length of time for which stocks can be run down; we are probably approaching that limit now. That rundown in the September quarter, combined with the rundown in the June quarter, has taken the non-farm stocks to sales ratio to the lowest level on record, supporting the judgment that it is unlikely that non-farm stocks will run down further. If that happens, the growth rate, other things being equal, will accelerate quite significantly. The general picture for the quarter is one of a small decline in domestic demand which has been more than offset by a moderate contribution to growth from net exports, which is, of course, broadly in line with the Government's economic strategy and expectations. Senator TEAGUE —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, refers to the University College of the Northern Territory. Is it true that there have been more than 250 formal applications, 80 per cent of them from the Northern Territory, for places at the University College of the Northern Territory-a college academically affiliated with the University of Queensland? Why has the Federal Government offered to fund only 20 university students a year for three years, and even then only at the Darwin Institute of Technology? Is it true that the number of Territory school students who go on to university study is only one-third of the national average? Why does the Minister persist in opposing the payment of benefits to students on their individual merits when they are enrolled at a university college in Darwin, particularly by way of denying students access to Austudy and Abstudy grants, when at the same time she professes to encourage more young Australians and more Aboriginal Australians to undertake tertiary study? Finally, quite apart from the wider advantages for Northern Territory students undertaking higher education in the Northern Territory, is it not cheaper to give Territory students Austudy grants to study at the Darwin University College than to have those students attend interstate universities and thus be eligible for three return air fares to the Territory each year in addition to the Austudy grant? Senator RYAN —The quite unsatisfactory situation that we have in the Northern Territory with regard to the University College of the Northern Territory is the result of the self- indulgence and gross extravagance of the Northern Territory Government. The Commonwealth-I presume that this is a position that honourable senators on the other side of the chamber and former education Ministers support-will not have higher education policy determined unilaterally by State or Territory regimes. It particularly will not acquiesce in a decision such as the one that the Northern Territory Government seems intent on taking, which will involve a gross misuse and wastage of public money. Let me remind Senator Teague of the history of this college. On the advice of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, the Commonwealth would have been prepared to fund, in a normal sense, university places offered by the University of Queensland in Darwin, if those places were put alongside the Darwin Institute of Technology. The Darwin Institute of Technology is a relatively new, relatively small higher education institution. It is going quite well and the Commonwealth wishes to support its development. It currently has in the vicinity of 1,000 students. It was the Commonwealth's view, and the view of many people in the Territory, that university places should be developed alongside the Darwin Institute of Technology so that there could be a common use of library facilities, administrative support services and so on. That was the obvious way to go for the development of university places in the Territory. But the Northern Territory Government decided, for its own reasons of self-aggrandisement, that it would not have the university and college places developing together in this efficient and sensible fashion but, rather, that it would spend in the vicinity of $6m of taxpayers' money-as we all know, that is money from all Australian taxpayers, not just those in the Northern Territory-to reconstruct the old Darwin Hospital and turn it into a university. This is extraordinarily inefficient not only in the use of capital funding, which is extravagant and unjustified, but also in educational terms because there will be perhaps only 200 students there. Those students will not have the benefit of combined library and other facilities that they would have had if the Darwin Institute of Technology site had been used. What would have been involved from the Commonwealth's point of view, if the Government had been prepared to fund it, which we were not-I would like those honourable senators opposite who are very interested in waste watching and various other things to note this-in terms of recurrent expenditure would have been recurrent costs of $24,000 per enrolment, which is $30,700 per equivalent full time student. That is what the Darwin Hospital site would have involved; whereas, in contrast, we will pay about $8,500 per full time student for the higher education component of the Darwin Institute of Technology and $6,000 per student place for additional intakes throughout Australia in 1987. I am glad that my colleague Senator Walsh is paying attention. The Northern Territory decision will cost $24,000 or $30,000 per student, as against $6,000 per student for the rest of Australia or $8,500 for the Darwin Institute of Technology. We have offered to fund university places, as I said, on the Darwin Institute of Technology campus. When it became clear that the Northern Territory would proceed with a separate university college, CTEC proposed 20 additional places for the Darwin Institute of Technology, plus a further 10 Aboriginal places. The reason why the numbers are such is that in 1985 the Darwin Institute of Technology had been unable to secure the student load for which it was funded, that is, it had spare places. That says something about the extent to which there is local demand. However, a considerable improvement occurred this year enabling the Commission to conclude that moderate expansion is possible for 1987. The Commission remains concerned, however, that the Northern Territory's obsession with developing a separate university will damage the development of the Darwin Institute of Technology. It is the Commission's advice-which I am sympathetic to-that we should secure the proper development of the Darwin Institute of Technology. I would be very interested to hear what honourable senators, including senators from the Northern Territory, think about the extravagance in the Darwin Hospital site. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why abandon the principle of giving Abstudy and Austudy benefits to students on their individual merits? Senator RYAN —Education allowances are paid on the basis of students being enrolled in Commonwealth-approved courses. Because of the intransigence of the Northern Territory with regard to the siting and costing of this development, the courses will not be Commonwealth-approved in that sense and, therefore, will not be eligible. Senator VALLENTINE —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of the incident at the Hanford nuclear waste facility in the United States on 29 September this year when operators transferring plutonium-bearing liquid from one plant to a storage tank failed to notice that a pipe to another storage tank, which was already filled with plutonium, had not been sealed off? Is he also aware that, if more plutonium had been pumped into that fuel tank, a spontaneous chain reaction could have occurred which would have caused intense heat and an explosion? Senator Walsh —Who told you that-Enid Blyton? Senator VALLENTINE —Will he confirm that as a result of this incident the two plants at Hanford were closed for a month? Will he also confirm that this is the same plant to which spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights are due to be sent next year? Finally, can the Government guarantee that material from Australia's spent fuel rods will not get lost, like the nine kilograms of plutonium-I point out that it takes only a quarter of that amount to make a nuclear weapon-which auditors at Hanford reported last month was unaccounted for during the six-month period ending September 1985? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen some Press reports of the recent incident at the Hanford nuclear processing plant, but I am unable to confirm at this stage the specific details of the incident or how long the plant remained closed. I do not know how accurate Senator Vallentine's account of the technical sequence of events is or may have been. I note Senator Peter Walsh's interjection that it is an account that seems to owe more to Enid Blyton than to Scientific American. I reserve judgment on the matter until I have had a further and better report. It is not the case, to come to the nub of the honourable senator's question so far as her domestic constituency is concerned, that our spent reactor fuel elements from Lucas Heights will be sent to the Hanford facility. This material will be reprocessed at the Savannah River or Idaho Falls facilities in the United States in accordance with the Australia-United States safeguards agreement as elaborated in an exchange of notes tabled in Parliament in November 1985. As I explained in my answer to another question on this subject from the honourable senator on 6 May this year, the agreement will ensure that all nuclear material recovered through reprocessing, namely, highly enriched uranium and any plutonium, will be properly accounted for and will be available only for peaceful uses as agreed by Australia. It should be noted that there is so little plutonium in the Hifar fuel elements-a total of about 200 grams in the 450 fuel elements involved-that in practice it is unlikely that that plutonium will even be recovered during the reprocessing sequence and will instead be retained with the fission products and treated as waste. Senator MESSNER —Is the Minister for Finance aware of an article that appeared on Monday, 24 November in the Australian Financial Review indicating that some of Australia's largest companies are considering the extensive restructuring of their overseas interests as a direct result of the foreign tax credits system introduced by the Government in June this year? Will the Minister explain whether the desired effect of the legislation was to discourage Australian businesses from repatriating their dividends to Australia and for these same businesses to float their off-shore operations? Can the Minister assure Australian businesses that the Government will not introduce complementary legislation to the foreign tax credit system which would tax the earnings of off-shore subsidiaries, regardless of whether or not those earnings were repatriated? Senator WALSH —I have not seen the article in question; so I am, therefore, at somewhat of a disadvantage. In general, the objective of the foreign tax credit system component of the tax reform package is consistent with that of the whole package, that is, to make the tax system more neutral than it previously was. Not having seen the original article, I will have to take the rest of the question on notice and seek a response from the Treasurer. Senator ELSTOB —I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce: How successful is the Government's policy of a 150 per cent tax deduction for research and development expenditure under the industrial research and development taxation concession scheme? Will the Government be considering extending the eligibility criteria for the scheme following criticism that it affects only one link in the marketing chain and that there also needs to be similar assistance for the identification and development of market opportunities? In particular, what is the Minister's response to calls from the travel industry to have the development of the infrastructure for tourism in this country covered by a similar scheme? Senator BUTTON —I believe that the scheme has been quite successful. The measure of that is the number of companies that have indicated increased expenditure on research and development in the past year or two and particularly since the scheme has come into force. Senator Elstob has asked whether the eligibility criteria for the scheme should be extended following criticisms that it affects only one link in the marketing chain. I do not know whether sufficient time has elapsed to draw that conclusion. I would think not. The scheme was deliberately limited because of the need to target it towards research and development activity, an area in which Australia had an appalling record compared with other countries. At a later stage there could be amendments to the scheme, but the market opportunities might best be identified by those people in the market who ought to have the necessary skills to do so. Nonetheless, the matter can always be examined. I do not know whether there should be a similar scheme for tourism. My mind boggles at the notion of research into tourism. I can understand the notion of development but I do not understand terribly much the notion of research. Perhaps I can refer that part of the question to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to see whether he has anything further to add. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What obstacles, if any, exist, including International Labour Organisation decisions, which would prevent the compulsory employment of those receiving unemployment benefit? I ask this question for the fourth time in six weeks, having been given three firm promises from the Minister for an early answer. Senator BUTTON —I asked the relevant department about an answer to the honourable senator's question this morning. Senator Sir John Carrick —Six weeks! Senator BUTTON —I understand. I am not necessarily in the business of apologising, but on the previous occasion I indicated that I very much regretted the delay in obtaining an answer to the question. I asked about it again this morning. I will continue to do so over the next 12 hours. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the latest survey from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on employment and fringe benefits? If so, is he aware that at August 1986, 97.4 per cent of employees in the highest income bracket-over $600 weekly-received one or more fringe benefits? Is he aware that only 35.4 per cent in the lowest income bracket-below $120 a week-received employment benefits? Are these findings consistent with Senator Chaney's claim last week in the matter of urgency debate that those most penalised by the fringe benefits tax are low income earners? What are the policy implications of the findings? Senator WALSH —I have a summary of the figures. They give the lie, of course, to the assertion in Senator Chaney's speech on the urgency motion last week. The way in which Senator Maguire's question is framed understates the degree to which fringe benefits are concentrated among high income earners. That point was not adequately appreciated in the report in yesterday's Australian Financial Review headed `Perks Go to all Groups' which said that fringe benefits are received by a wide cross-section of employees and so on. It then failed to distinguish between the provision of a fringe benefit and of a fringe benefit which is subject to fringe benefits taxation. That is a very important distinction because when one looks at the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures to which Senator Maguire refers, of the percentage of employees receiving fringe benefits, 80 per cent receive sick leave-which is defined for this purpose as a fringe benefit-more than 80 per cent receive annual leave, about two-thirds receive long service leave and about 39 per cent receive superannuation. The important point is that none of those payments which are received by the great majority of the work force are subject to fringe benefits taxation. Some 18 per cent of employees receive goods and services. They were in the next highest fringe benefit group, as defined by the ABS. It is unlikely that many of those 18.6 per cent would be affected by fringe benefits taxation. Given all the qualifications in the FBT legislation, it is unlikely that the total value of the benefit received would exceed $500. Conversely, when one looks at items subject to fringe benefits taxation and at the stratification on income grounds of the recipients of those benefits one finds exactly what Senator Maguire suggested. I take, for example, low interest finance. The lowest of five income groups in this analysis received no low interest finance. The next lowest group-1.6 per cent of employees-received it. When one goes to the highest group, above $600 a week, some 6.6 per cent received it. The same thing happens with medical fees. In the lowest group-one-fifth of income recipients-1.1 per cent receive some medical fringe benefit. In the highest group, the figure is 7.9 per cent, and so on. In closing, the two important points I want to make are, firstly, that that article in yesterday's Australian Financial Review either is misleading or could mislead people because it fails to distinguish between fringe benefits as defined by the ABS and those fringe benefits which are subject to FBT legislation; and, secondly, the statistics absolutely contradict the assertion in Senator Chaney's speech on the urgency motion in the Senate last week and demonstrate that those benefits which are subject to fringe benefits taxation are overwhelmingly concentrated at the high end of the income spectrum. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —I seek leave to make a personal statement. Leave granted. Senator SIDDONS —I thank the Senate. The reason I became involved in Australian politics 16 years ago was my concern about the efficiency of Australian industry and the very high level of foreign ownership of our resources. The events of the last two days have made it clear to me that I can no longer speak honestly and directly on these issues while remaining Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats and the Party's spokesperson on the economy. I therefore tender my resignation from the Party, effective now. Yesterday four of the seven Democrat senators voted in favour of subsidising the importation of foreign produced fertiliser. The fact that Australia is the only country in the world which subsidises an import speaks, I believe, for itself. But, more importantly, that we continue to do so when Australia is in economic crisis is a fundamental matter of principle to me and one which demonstrates that the Leader of the Australian Democrats and a majority of the Party's senators are prepared to pay lip service to the Party's economic policies as set out in its alternative Budget and elsewhere, yet vote against those policies rather than upset powerful groups in the community. The Party's economic policies have remained consistent and its objectives have not changed. However, the present leadership has concentrated on single issues and ignored the fundamental fact that the economy and these issues cannot be separated. I will continue to fight for a change in economic direction in this country in every way open to me as an Independent senator. I will vigorously contest the next election, drawing attention to the importance of efficient export oriented industries as the only way to bring Australia back from the brink of bankruptcy. This is a challenge which requires a new vision for Australia. The elected representatives of the people have a duty to put clearly before the electorate an alternative other than to a market forces philosophy. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report was not available until the tabling of papers this morning. I have not had a chance to look at it closely but it is being tabled at a time when the motor vehicle industry is in particularly serious straits. The figures which have come down today from the Australian Bureau of Statistics are worse than those which were produced by Idaps Research Pty Ltd a few days ago, which were very sobering, about the present position of the industry. The registration of new motor vehicles, according to ABS figures, has slumped to reach the lowest October result since October 1967. Registrations fell by 4.5 per cent over the month to 40,259 and by over 30 per cent compared with October last year. In seasonally adjusted terms, the October figure is 7.1 per cent lower than the September result and 29.6 per cent lower than at October 1985. This is the lowest monthly result since August 1972. There is very limited opportunity to debate matters on the presentation of these reports but since the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is in the chamber I simply say to him that notwithstanding his frequent recitation of the litany of reasons why motor vehicle sales have slumped-that includes the high level of sales last year, interest rates are high, the exchange rate has meant that import prices have risen and the price of imported components has risen, there has been a switch to unleaded petrol and so on-all these factors influence the market. The fact is that the Government has wilfully and intentionally added to the burdens of the industry by its sales tax adjustments in the Budget-the second lot of sales tax adjustments within 12 months-and by the fringe benefits tax. The simple point I want to make, in responding at this stage to the presentation of this report, is to say to the Government that when the terms of trade are moving so heavily against an industry they have certainly moved very heavily against the motor industry in Australia in the last year-it is not the time for the Government to impose new discretionary burdens on the industry. I appeal to the Minister to give urgent consideration to the plight of the industry and the need to reduce the burdens under which it is staggering at the moment. As far as the Authority is concerned, I have expressed previously in this place my concern about the prospect of the Authority advising the Minister on his taking punitive action against manufacturers who are as yet not making the sorts of changes which the car plan envisages. I am particularly concerned because the factual basis on which the Authority is making its assessments are facts which are not known to the general public because of the commercial confidentiality of the information. I put the Minister on notice that the Opposition would certainly not be in a position to support action by the Government to force car makers to take action under the car plan when it, the Opposition and the general public are in the dark as to the surrounding facts. Mr Deputy President, I do not know whether there are other senators who wish to speak on this report. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There are. Senator CHANEY —In that case I will not seek leave to continue my remarks. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.12) —The 1985-86 annual report of the Automotive Industry Authority covers the Authority's first full year of activity. The Authority actually has a number of responsibilities, one of which is to monitor the performance of the industry in order to determine progress towards the attainment of industry goals, as set by government policy. Of course, another function of the Authority is to encourage the export of Australian produced vehicles and components. The Authority has a fairly heavy level of expenditure. In fact, in 1985-86 expenditure totalled $21.5m. I must say it is heartening to see that the Government is at last doing something positive for the Australian car industry. In the recent past it has actually attacked the industry from a variety of sides. The fringe benefits tax, the depreciation of the Australian dollar, which substantially hiked up the price of essential imported parts, increases in sales tax and the introduction of lead-free petrol, are all examples of government policies which have severely damaged the industry. In fact, total car registrations in the new car area in the 10 months to October were 22 per cent less then the figures at this time last year. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) stated, it is the lowest level of registrations in Australia in more than 10 years. It is predicted that, by the end of 1986, the industry will have gone through its worst year, unfortunately, since 1972. That was the year, of course, in which the economy suffered a credit squeeze. Unfortunately, this trend is expected to continue throughout the whole of next year and it will place tremendous pressure on an already struggling automotive industry which is heavily burdened with the costs of high reinvestment programs. In light of all the difficulties which are being faced by the industry, the establishment of the Automotive Industry Authority is something of an hypocrisy. It displays the fact that one area of government is out of step with another. While one of the Government's aims is commendable-that is, the establishment of the Authority-many other policies of government are actually jeopardising the very industry that, for example, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is trying to foster. The Australian Auto Mobile Dealers Association estimates that 4,000 jobs have been lost so far in the industry, and there are more to be lost. Manufacturers have been laying off workers. Unfortunately, many dealerships have already gone into liquidation. The greatest torpedo that the Government has launched against this industry has been in the form of the fringe benefits tax. The Hawke Government failed to carry out a cost benefit analysis of the fringe benefits tax on the automobile industry. This failure is now being shown as a glaring mistake because the tax is hitting the whole spectrum of the industry. In particular, it is hitting Mr and Mrs Average-Mr and Mrs John Citizen-because the worst affected area of the industry is the medium sized and small car market. The industry already employs about 69,000 people and accounts for 17 per cent of all retail sales. No amount of support by one government authority will be able to save an industry which is so integral to our economy, while the Government pursues such detrimental policies in other areas. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(3.15) —I rise today to speak on this paper because it is in many ways a symbol of what this Government has done in this area. The Automotive Industry Authority's annual report is an important document for the automotive industry. This is only the Authority's second report, and the first for a full year. The Hawke Labor Government, in October 1984, set up the Automotive Industry Authority to oversee the implementation of the Government's car plan. I quote from the first page of this report under the heading `Role of the Authority'. It states: The key role of the Automotive Industry Authority is to oversee the restructuring of the industry required by Government policy and to encourage changes designed to improve the industry's efficiency so as to reduce its dependence on government support. In executing this task, the Authority seeks to act as an `honest broker', promoting co-operation and communication between industry participants and assisting them to act in accordance with the Government's policy objectives. In the early days of this Government it was obvious that the automotive industry needed to be placed on a basis in which it was not going to be supported by massive government assistance for all time. A lean and competitive industry that can not only provide motor cars for the Australian market but also surge forward on the export market was to be the end product of the automotive plan. I point out that the Australian industry, in which I spent a great part of my working life, needed such a plan, and government commitment to its implementation. Despite the framework of considerable tariff protection, imported passenger vehicles still made at first a dint on the local market and eventually took a huge chunk. It has been obvious to industry sources in Australia that to be in a healthy state the automotive industry must reduce the number of models produced across the board and move seriously in the direction of export implementation. In 1985 a record number of vehicles was registered in Australia. There was a total of 685,000 new vehicle registrations in that year. It was a record year because of several factors: Firstly, people believing that they needed to buy in advance of the introduction of lead-free petrol models; and secondly, cars bought before the full impact of the depreciating dollar made prices surge. In 1986 the figures for new car registrations do not look nearly so good. However, the basis of the automotive future in this country is summed up on page 4 of this report which states: The objective of export facilitation is to encourage the export of Australian produced vehicles and components so that the vehicle industry will benefit from increased efficiencies arising from higher volumes of production. That, in a nutshell, is the car plan-greater volumes of production for the same model. This is to be achieved on the domestic as well as the international market. I commend the report to the Senate. Indeed, it is an important landmark in the implementation of this Government's plans and endeavours to bring about a more effective and vibrant car manufacturing setup. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —During Question Time, Senator Maguire asked a question of Senator Walsh in which he said that in a debate last week in the Senate on an urgency motion on the fringe benefits tax I had said that those most penalised by the fringe benefits tax are low income earners. I have now been able to check my recollection of that debate against the Hansard. My recollection is correct and Senator Maguire is incorrect. The debate brought on last week did refer to low income earners and the unfair impact on relatively low income earners, such as bank officers, of the fringe benefits tax but there is nothing in either the motion which was moved by the Opposition or in the speech which I made in support of that motion which would suggest that I was saying that they were most penalised. In my speech I pointed out categories of people who are on relatively low incomes and who are affected by the fringe benefits tax. I had the temerity to quote Senator Richardson, who drew attention to the fact that bank officers, most of whom are on less than average weekly earnings, are severely affected by it. The only other thing that could have led to any confusion in the mind of Senator Maguire is that I referred to Mount Isa Mines Ltd as having given an estimate that 80 per cent of the tax that it pays for fringe benefits is for benefits which are applicable to the blue collar work force of that company. So I did draw attention to that claim by Mount Isa Mines Ltd which received wide publicity some months ago. The simple point that was being made by the Opposition in the debate is that the tax has a very wide impact and many people who are on low incomes are being affected by its provisions. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I commend the report to the Senate. The Human Rights Commission was asked to report on the exemptions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act in relation to superannuation and provident funds or schemes and insurance. The report covered section 41 (1). The Commission was unable to complete its inquiry into section 41 (4) because it expires on 9 December this year. This report focuses on the application of anti-discrimination provisions to employer sponsored superannuation. The inquiry commenced in late 1984. Following newspaper advertisements over 50 submissions were received. The Commission also sought comment from various public and private organisations, and referred to earlier relevant reports from the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board and the Victorian Equal Opportunity Board. In its examination of superannuation and provident schemes which are discriminatory on the ground of sex or marital status the main areas identified as requiring attention were conditions of eligibility, retirement ages, death and disablement benefits, lump sum benefits and conversion factors-practices involving indirect discrimination. In Australia at present, superannuation is largely unregulated by anti-discrimination legislation. The Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act and three of the four State anti-discrimination Acts wholly exempt superannuation from the application of their provisions. In all of these cases, however, the governments concerned had indicated their intention to review the relevant provisions. Recent South Australian legislation explicitly covers superannuation and substantially limits, but does not completely remove, the discriminatory provisions permissible in superannuation schemes. The report notes that there have been certain significant changes in the area of superannuation in recent years which have important implications for discrimination in superannuation. These changes include changes to the taxation of lump sum payments, increasing coverage of employees in the private sector, an increased involvement of trade unions in superannuation issues and a proposal by the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions that the national productivity case result in an increase of 3 per cent wage equivalent to be paid in the form of a new, improved occupational superannuation for all employees. I commend the recommendation of the report which supports the two earlier State reports to which I referred. The recommendation that action be taken to repeal section 41 (1) is commendable and a significant response to the work that the Commission has carried out. As the report points out, following the repeal of section 41 (1), superannuation schemes would be required to comply with the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act. The report also points out that a transitional period will be needed for schemes to prepare the variations to their trust deeds and to effect the changes in practice necessary to bring them into line with the Sex Discrimination Act. The recommendation from the Commission is that such transition period should be three years provided that arrangements are made to remove the exemption within 12 months of the delivery of this report. In conclusion No. 207 the Commission points out that all superannuation schemes should contain the same retirement age provision for men and women. It further concluded that personal superannuation not involving insurance should also conform to the requirements for non-discriminatory schemes contained in the report. I see this and the other recommendations of this report as advances and, as I said, commend the report to the Senate. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.27) —I would like to say something about the Human Rights Commission itself. Senator Powell has correctly praised this particular report of the Human Rights Commission. I join her in commending the Human Rights Commission, not only in regard to this particular report but generally. When the Australian Bill of Rights was being discussed around the country earlier this year the Human Rights Commission came in for a great deal of condemnation, criticism and hostility. Since the Government has indicated it will not be proceeding with the Bill, that criticism, condemnation and hostility has fallen away. I think that is significant. It raises the question of whether the condemnation, criticism and hostility directed towards the Human Rights Commission was engendered by animosity towards the Bill rather than towards the Commission. The many hundreds of cases that have come before the Commission have attracted no criticism of the way in which it has dealt with those cases. Criticism has been directed at very few of the many reports that it has put out. It behoves people in the Parliament as a whole to acknowledge the work that the Human Rights Commission has done over the years. It behoves them to acknowledge that the Commission was unjustly treated. It received trenchant criticism not so much because of its operation but because it was the subject of a package of legislation which included the Bill of Rights. It was the Bill of Rights which was the real object of attack. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PARER(Queensland)(3.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to say a few words about the Department of Trade's annual report. As an overview to the report the Department of Trade has pointed out what most of us already know; that is, that we have currently-and have had for quite some time-a serious deficit in our balance of trade. This serious deficit has been caused by many factors. Our terms of trade, our inability to compete, thus the increase in imports; and the virtual collapse of our manufacturing industry. But the Trade Department concentrates in a very positive way to the development of our overseas trade-that side of the ledger that is supposed to offset the imports that come into this country. Australia historically has been a great trading country and the two areas in which it has been greatest have been on the agricultural trade side and on the minerals and energy side. I would like to concentrate a little on the minerals and energy side because I think it has the potential to do something about the balance of payments deficit which is confronting us, even though the terms of trade have been diminished. While the industry can make an enormous contribution and while the Department of Trade makes a very positive input, it seems to me that the Department suffers an undermining because of the domestic policies of this Government. Currently before us is the dispute about Kakadu National Park. I make the point that no one disputes that there are areas in Kakadu that should be preserved, but just as strongly I make the point that, with the financial and economic crisis we have in this country, we cannot afford to lock up forever some of the mineral deposits that are in Kakadu and which are not part of the areas which should be preserved. It must be pointed out that the minerals and energy exports account for 37 per cent of Australia's total merchandise exports. One of the problems for the Department of Trade that was introduced in the Whitlam-Connor era was the introduction of export controls. I know the reasoning behind it. The thinking was, quite incorrectly, that somehow the introduction of these export controls would artificially lift or maintain the prices of our export products so that we did not somehow slip below the rest of the market. Having been involved in this, I can tell honourable senators that it was an utter failure. In no way did the introduction of export controls have any effect on the sort of prices we got for our mineral exports. I must say that I am amazed that Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Resources and Energy, in answer to a question I put to him yesterday about the possibility of a national coal authority, said: The Government is considering, as it has been for some time since it is a matter of long-standing Party policy, the feasibility and desirability of establishing a national coal authority. The thought of even introducing a bureaucratic monster such as a national coal authority-Senator Gareth Evans painted certain scenarios as to what that could be-is enough to damage the mining industry, of which the coal industry is part. We cannot afford to let this happen in this country today with our disastrous balance of payments situation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Australian Film, Television and Radio School gives the Senate the opportunity to put on record a few matters about the school. The first thing to be said is to note the change of the name of this institution from the Australian Film and Television School to the Australian Film, Television and Radio School in recognition of the increasingly important role the school plays in training people for their participation in the radio sector of Australian broadcasting and entertainment. It also gives an opportunity to express a high degree of congratulations to Anne Deveson and those others concerned with the school, including its chairman, Mr Skrzynski, for the way in which they have gone about remoulding and reshaping the direction of this particular institution. The review put in place by Miss Deveson has been a most important one. I think it has put a great deal of new life and vitality back into the school and continues, as a result, to put the school in a position to make a very valuable and important contribution to the training of people, particularly in a technical side of the broadcasting and entertainment industry. I think the most important work the school undertakes is the training of people of high technical quality and skills as well as those whose talents may be regarded as developing more along artistic lines. It is also important to indicate that in this report we get the first acknowledgment of the outstanding success of a number of the productions from the Film, Television and Radio School students which have been exposed to various domestic and international competitions. I think the Senate would want to be on record as indicating a high degree of pride in the fact that Jane Campion's film Peel was awarded the Palme d'Or at the last Cannes Film Festival as the best short film produced and shown at that major international festival. The report, on pages 41 and 42, indicates other awards which have been won by students and productions from the Film, Television and Radio School. Although time is short and I have been able to point out only one, in terms of Jane Campion, I think it should also be pointed out that people such as Rob Marchand, with his film The Cellist, and a number of others are properly noted in the report as having been very successful in terms of being judged by their peers and being judged by the industry. This is an important report. I believe it is one which indicates the value of investment in the long term future of the Australia film, television and radio industry. I congratulate those who have been associated with the school in the last 12 months and I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government papers has now expired. A number of papers have not yet been reached, so with the leave of the Senate I will give honourable senators an opportunity to move motions that the Senate take note of a paper and for debate to be then adjourned to the next day of business. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-On behalf of Senator Ray, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he shall move- (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has completed its Report on the Operation During the 1984 General Election of the 1983-84 Amendments to Commonwealth Electoral Legislation, the Committee may send the Report to the President or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Report is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Report; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Senator Zakharov: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.40) —I will refer very briefly to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the adequacy of quarantine in the Torres Strait area. I suspect very little comment is required on this report because the Committee was given precise and distinct terms of reference and the report is clear and precise in terms of identifying perceived problems and in putting forward recommendations that might ensure security of quarantine between Papua New Guinea, the Torres Strait and the mainland of Australia. The concern I still have is about the movement particularly of people but also of goods and animals which may take place with very considerable ease between Papua New Guinea, the Torres Strait and the Australian mainland. Of course there are Torres Strait islands within walking distance of Papua New Guinea. At low tide it is possible to wade across to the nearest islands from Papua New Guinea. Very considerable communication and transportation takes place on a regular basis amongst the island people and the Papua New Guinean people who also move to Thursday Island and the mainland. The real problem is that a number of exotic diseases and pests are to be found and can be identified in Papua New Guinea. I refer to plant diseases such as black leaf streak, downy mildew, moth and weevil borers, white grubs, Fiji disease, citrus canker and a number of others. In terms of exotic animal diseases one can find, particularly in Irian Jaya, the old world screw-worm fly and the virulent Newcastle disease which, as we all know, affects domestic poultry. If it were to get into Australia it would probably have the effect of destroying the total bird population, particularly our domestic bird population. As I have said, there are very many opportunities for movement between the islands. There are a number of other diseases such as tapeworm, foot and mouth disease which have been found in Irian Jaya, and rabies is prevalent in certain parts of Indonesia. These diseases take on a new dimension when one contemplates the refugees who are on the Irian Jaya-Papua New Guinea border and the fact that there seems to be some movement across that imaginary line. From that point it is not difficult for diseases and pest to move south through the Torres Strait Islands to Thursday Island, to Cape York and down to the heart of mainland Australia. It was my experience when travelling through the area that there is not a clear understanding by many Torres Strait people of the inherent risks and dangers in the free movement of goods and animals between Papua New Guinea and the islands. Honourable senators will understand that a number of traditional feasts take place which require the movement of pigs and the like. They move freely and there is no certainty that there is not an infestation of one type or another. There is a very real and immediate need for an educative program for these people, explaining to them the various types of diseases and pests so that they can identify them and at the same time taking cognisance of the movement of people particularly those from Papua New Guinea to the islands. There is some virtue in the Government contemplating the prospect of having a voluntary Australian Customs Service officer or quarantine officer in the form of one of the Torres Strait Islander people on each island so that they could not only educate their own people but also be vigilant towards the movement of other people in and out of their islands. Another matter that also causes me concern is that there seems to be no proper quarantining of the movement of people from Horn Island, in particular, or any of the Torres Strait Islands into Cairns. There is no supervision of the movement of people from the islands to Cairns although I think they go through some sort of a Customs barrier at Cairns. However, it seems to be very loose particularly for movement from the north to the south and that matter ought to be looked at with some considerable care. Finally I refer to the fact that there is some considerable movement of shipping. First of all the Strait is an international shipping route which provides an opportunity for ships to discharge people and goods on to the islands. There is also very considerable movement of shipping between the islands and the north-east coast of Australia. Under the present laws quarantine officers do not have the free right of inspecting domestic shipping. It would be appropriate if the legislation could be amended to provide scope for quarantine officers to be able to board south bound ships, to inspect them and to ensure that they are in no way likely to be carrying any exotic diseases or pests which would in any way harm, damage or risk particularly the animal population of Australia. If one really examines the sorts of diseases that can be found in Indonesia and in the islands slightly to the north, one quickly comes to realise that if the diseases were to find their way into Australia-particularly foot and mouth disease and Newcastle disease and the like-they could have a devastating effect on our animal population, our rural industry and subsequently, of course, our export earnings. The report touches on those matters in its recommendations and it is worthy of some serious consideration by the relevant authorities. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(3.47) —I would like to make some remarks on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the adequacy of quarantine in the Torres Strait area. I was one of those who went to the Torres Strait, Thursday Island, Badu Island and York Island. The report defines the adequacy of quarantine and other control measures in the Torres Strait area to protect Australian rural industries from the introduction and spread of exotic livestock and plant diseases. It was my experience, whilst I was with the Committee in the islands, that the Islanders were very aware of the important role that they had to play in protecting Australian livestock industries. The people on all the islands the Committee visited showed an awareness of the problems of quarantine. As Senator Crichton-Browne has mentioned, the Islanders' lifestyle demand that they have traditional feasts. Most Islanders have relations on other islands and they visit those islands for wedding ceremonies, Christmas ceremonies and grave opening ceremonies which is one of the get-togethers they have on the islands. I was horrified when I heard the term `grave opening'. The headstone is covered up after the funeral and 12 months after the person has died the people on the island open the covering on the gravestone and they all get together. One of the things I have found, not so much on my trip with the Committee but since I have been to the islands in the immediate past, is that there is a concern among the Islanders that a number of Papua New Guinea people are staying on the islands. These people are coming in from across the border between Australia and the islands of Saibai, Boigu and Dauan. They are moving down through the islands of Torres Strait. Not only are they moving on to the outer islands but they are moving on to Thursday Island. It is very difficult for anyone who is not familiar with the area to distinguish between the islanders and Papua New Guineans. Some of the Papua New Guineans are working in and exploiting the cray fishing industry on the eastern islands. These people are coming down from Papua in their 14-foot aluminium dinghies powered by 40-horsepower motors and are working the cray fishing industry which rightfully belongs to the Torres Strait Islanders. This problem has to be addressed by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. These people are coming down from Papua and staying on the little sand cays in the Torres Strait and working from dinghies. When questioned they say they have come down for a traditional visit and that they are out cray fishing because they are preparing for a traditional feast. However, they offload their crays on to other cray boats. The Government has not done anything to address this problem. This is a problem to all of the island community councils and the chairmen of those councils who are worried that the Torres Strait will eventually be taken over by Papua new Guineans. Torres Strait Islanders are very friendly people who do not want to create any waves. They are not a fierce people and they do not throw people off their islands. But they express concern that their islands and their lifestyles are going to be influenced by Papua New Guineans who, although not Australian citizens, are coming down and living on Torres Strait islands. I know that Mr Hurford is aware of the problem. He has been up to the Torres Strait area. However, I do not think he has done anything constructive to bring this situation under control. I became aware of this problem when I visited the area as a member of the Committee which was investigating the adequacy of quarantine in the Torres Strait area. I think that problem has been covered in the Committee report that has been put down. However, other problems are not being addressed by this Government. The Government must move to protect the rights of Torres Strait Islanders who are of Melanesian and Polynesian origin and who moved into the Torres Strait area about 700 years ago. They are Australian citizens and they want to remain Australian citizens. They are fiercely proud of that citizenship. I think this Government must do something constructive very soon. I have been told by nurses, fishermen and other residents of the islands that people from Papua are coming down to the islands without having had any health checks. They are presenting a very serious health problem by moving into the different islands. I have even heard it said that some of them are bringing with them very exotic diseases. This is a problem that was picked up during the course of the Committee's visit although we were not looking for it. I say to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) that I am addressing the Senate on a very important problem. I would like her to take my remarks to the relevant Minister and tell him the problems that the islanders are experiencing with people from Papua New Guinea, who are not Australian citizens, moving in and living on Torres Strait islands. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Senator Sibraa: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator MASON —(New South Wales) (3.55)-The report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled `Australia and the Philippines: The situation in the Philippines and its implications for Australia' is a very interesting and useful report which sets out a great deal of fact. Senator Crichton-Browne —Is it a good report? Senator MASON —It is a good report but to my mind it does not sufficiently emphasise and define closely enough the type of initiative that Australia should take to assist the processes of reform that would be the only way of saving the Philippines society in the future. This is something of a spectator report. As I said, it contains a great deal of factual material but when it comes to recommendations I think the Committee has been more vague than it ought to have been in defining what should be the important thing for this Parliament-that is, what can we do most effectively to help the present situation in the Philippines? I suggest that it is not enough that President Aquino has survived the recent coup possibilities. She has done so at the price of an accommodation with the military in the Philippines. I think that is something of enormous importance; it is something which has to be taken into account in any dealings with the Philippines that our Government might have. Quite unlike our military forces in Australia, in a sense the regional power groupings in the Philippines in many cases are in fact private armies which support the cause of local mayors and local plantation owners, particularly the owners of sugar plantations, and whose sole purpose is to put down and to suppress the normal feelings of independence that people have and to exploit people economically in every way possible. I remember that when I was in the Philippines two years ago I spoke with the late lamented Defence Minister, Mr Juan Ponce Enrile, about the Brian Gore case. I was told then by Mr Enrile-I think this is important and valuable-that there was not a great deal that the Philippines Government in Manila could do about situations like that because, and Mr Enrile told me this quite frankly, there were power groupings in the Philippines over which the central Government had virtually no control. I think we have to bear in mind that it is not only what is going to happen in Manila that will be of consequence. Reforms in the Philippines will not be easy. Many years ago I was in the Philippines for the election following the death of Ramon Magsaysay whom some honourable senators may remember as being the President in the 1950s who really did attempt proper agrarian reform and reform of the Filipino society. He ran headlong into conflict with these regional power groupings in the Philippines, as a result of which he was killed not long afterwards in an air crash. I and many other people do not believe that that air crash was accidental. I was at the election following Magsaysay's death. It was an eye opener for me to observe that election closely and to see the degree of corruption which marked the election at that time and which has also occurred at every election since. I also saw the degree of violence that occurs in all Filipino elections. Scores of people were killed. Literally millions of people were influenced either by bribes, blackmail or by force in respect of the way they cast their votes. The report of the Joint Committee states: The Committee considers it appropriate that the Philippines should rank high among the recipients of Australian development assistance in view of its development needs and its strategic, political and economic importance to Australia. One could not disagree with that statement. But it is not good enough; it does not go far enough. I ask, through the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) who is at the table, that the Australian Government consider as a matter of urgency a definite and large pattern of aid to the Filipino Government of Mrs Aquino which addresses some fundamental problems of that society and that some attempt be made to analyse and assess what those fundamental problems are before that aid program is worked out. The basic problem is that the very poor people in the barrios and the villages need some kind of co-operative industries. They perhaps need to produce better farm products. There should be a strong inducement on the Filipino Government if that can be done-and I think it can-to transfer land back to those people. Land used for export crops, particularly sugar, should be transferred back to them so that the Philippines can return to a situation where it is actually capable of feeding its own people, which it is not capable of doing now. I think there could be any sort of assistance for co-operative industries at the village level. I will have a word about infrastructure a little later but I believe there should not be large infrastructure projects, such as dams, roads and things of that kind. The projects should be designed to address the actual needs of the bulk of the people at the very poor and impoverished economic level at which they now stand. These things will not be achieved simply by throwing money. I suggest that there is a mission for Australia, as far as the Philippines is concerned, to go back to the sort of situation we had 20 years ago. Expert volunteers were actually prepared to go into countries, with sufficient financial backing, and work with the people to do the things that needed to be done. I remember the tremendous reputation that Australian Volunteers Abroad had in Indonesia and in all the other Asian countries at the time. We now have mass unemployment. A lot of our young people, who are extremely well educated and very competent, would be very properly and reasonably, I think, used in this way. It would be better for them to be used in this way than to sit rotting on the dole here; they can be of use. I put this suggestion to the Government, through the Minister at the table, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), as it is one which requires people. What I have said may sound strange because, due to my need to abbreviate my remarks, it would appear that we should push our way through and suggest to, or impose certain things on, the Philippines. Far from it. If we do consult sympathetically with the Aquino Government I think we will find an understanding that these sorts of things are necessary. If the Philippine Government were approached by the Australian Government in a reasonable way it might be very pleased for us to go ahead with that kind of aid. There is a reference on page 131 of the Committee's report which I think is a little unfortunate. It states: The projects have been criticised for an excessive emphasis on infrastructure. It has been argued that roads and bridges are of limited value to the poorest groups in the community and may also benefit the military. The Committee considers that this criticism misses the point that sustained economic growth, without which lasting poverty alleviation is unlikely to occur, requires the removal of major obstacles to development. In many developing countries, inadequate infrastructure is one of the most crippling obstacles to development. That is a very shallow, very superficial and totally inaccurate perception which the Committee has put in the report, and I do not know why it has done so. I have worked as an adviser overseas in these sorts of village communities and I can tell the Committee that that is not the first necessity. If infrastructure is put in first that infrastructure will not be used. We have to build up from the impoverished village society itself, and infrastructure is something which must come later. The Committee hangs itself by its own petard by saying that better roads mean that more farmers can get more produce to market more quickly. This shows a lack of understanding by the Committee. The majority of the people we are concerned with here are impoverished and have nothing to take to market and are not likely to have anything to take to market for a very long time. The people who can take things to market are already doing very nicely, thank you, and it is not really up to Australia to help them more. I think there is a lack of perception there which is very worrying. If we do not do this I think the New People's Army will increase its strength even more than it has done in the past. On page 42 the Committee talks about the NPA, and I am encouraged to see that it states: From 1983, the CPP/NPA- the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People's Army- grew rapidly. The NPA by then was established in nearly all the country's provinces and had an armed strength of perhaps 15,000 armed guerillas. That was the year I was in the Philippines. I spoke to a number of people in the church and elsewhere who had visited all parts of the Philippines regularly, and they said to me that the New People's Army was stronger then than it had ever been and that all the indications were that if the economic conditions in the Philippines were not ameliorated, it would continue to grow rapidly. So there is the alternative. We have an alternative available to us now to grasp the nettle and take this problem of an aid program to the Philippines, which involves people as well as money and which involves the real needs rather than just the easy way of throwing money into infrastructure, which anybody can do. We have that choice. Either we do that, and other countries in the world with a feeling of good will towards the Aquino Government do it, or we will face a situation where the Philippines will become a communist state. There are no other alternatives. If we sit back now and say that simply because Mrs Aquino appears to have made her accommodation with the military and seems to be in the saddle for the time being in Manila, we are kidding ourselves and, I suggest, kidding ourselves to our great cost in the long run. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(4.05) —We are discussing a country which is still in a great state of flux. There are obvious hazards in trying to write a report about a country in which great changes are in progress or where conflict remains unresolved. The report we are considering today, the report of the Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs and Defence titled `Australia and the Philippines', faces the danger of being outpaced by events as the sacking of Mr Enrile from the Aquino Government over the weekend indicates. To be fair, the report is necessarily tentative on a whole range of possible future events. The overthrow of the Marcos Government without significant loss of life was indeed a very remarkable event. But there were no illusions, especially among the Filipinos, that the problems and prospects facing them would be automatically resolved. The only real change that occurred with the overthrow of Marcos was that there was an increase in the range of possible paths to resolving the breakdown of the economy-rising poverty and the abuse of power and privilege. The Philippine society had become increasingly polarised under Marcos. Not only was there elite dissatisfaction with his rule, but a broad range of opposition groups, including the New Peoples' Army rapidly gained increasing support as agents of change. While the NPA, which is essentially based in rural areas, is not represented in the Aquino Government, broad based movements, some sharing common ground with the NPA, do have connections into the support base of the Government. Difficult as it might be, there still is an opportunity in the Philippines for Filipinos to steer a course which reflects the basic interests of the majority of the people and which moves towards eliminating the fundamental economic problems there. Such a course would need to have the support of bodies such as the NPA to have any chance of succeeding. This report is biased against such a course. I found the report's treatment of the NPA and other Left groups as almost one of derision. This is not surprising. At the outset of the report it is made clear that there are only two possible outcomes in the Philippines. It either retains its alliance with the West or it is hostile to us. The report does not suggest that there may be some other path. From this base the Committee then finds no problem in coming down on the side of the Philippines' military and recommending continued Australian military aid. It might not be much aid, it probably is not very much at all, as the report shows, but such a recommendation is a highly symbolic expression of which side we should take. I believe it is the last thing we should be doing while Filipinos are involved in a process of determining which direction their country should take. The events over the last week seem to indicate that the Aquino Government is increasingly dependent on the armed forces under General Ramos. The report's account of the Philippines armed forces I felt was inadequate. Coverage was given to much needed reforms within the military, but no detail was given on the depth of its ties with, and support from, the United States of America. Given the US interests in the Philippines, this is no small matter. I think we should have given a bit more consideration to that. We should remember that Marcos lost US support not because he was a corrupt dictator but because he had failed to keep the lid on the opposition to his rule. That was his fault. He was corrupt, but I do not think that was the main reason for his fall. Overall I found the report disappointing. I endorse the comments made by Senator Bolkus in his dissenting report. Having read his report, I feel that it contains a lot that is important and I hope that, some time next year when the Parliament resumes, he will be given the opportunity to expand on his views. I also endorse other comments that have identified the Cold War thinking that underlies the whole report. I earnestly hope, for the sake of the Filipino people, that the situation in their country does not deteriorate to the point where the West finds it necessary to intervene to convince the people that we know what is best for them. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.10) —I rise to speak briefly on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence headed `Australia and the Philippines: The situation in the Philippines and its implications for Australia'. I start my remarks by making some comments on and some references to the views proffered just last week by Senator Vallentine in her observations on the report and her very clear criticism of it. Frankly, having read just a few moments ago the Hansard record of her comments, and refreshed my memory on the report, I see no relationship between the two. Either Senator Vallentine had the wrong report or she had read it and judged it in a way that suited her prejudices. What she said was in no way a reflection of the substance of the report or its recommendations. She said that the report was seen in terms of bland, naive East-West relations when, of course, it was not under any circumstances seen as such. The report was designed to be a reflection of historic events and facts, a record of current and contemporary circumstances and, in some limited and modest way, an attempted prognosis of the future. Of course, the report was inhibited to the extent that circumstances in the Philippines at that time were very fluid and changing by the day. As we were taking evidence, we had to call witnesses back to ask them whether they would reconsider their position because events had changed since they had previously given evidence. However, we saw our way through that and I believe that it is an excellent report. One thing I will say, with some trepidation, is that I thought that the quality of the evidence presented to the Committee would not have allowed us, if we had relied exclusively on it, to make the sophisticated, in-depth judgments on events in and the future of the Philippines that we wanted to make. However, let me return to Senator Vallentine's claims. She talked about the Filipino people have been blatantly used in every imaginable way to serve the interests of the United States of America personnel who frequent the United States bases, as though that was something that warranted the bases being closed down and removed. I would have thought that, with the fertile imagination that Senator Vallentine has, she could have come up with something more substantial than that as an excuse for closing down the bases. If Senator Vallentine wants to look at the involvement of the Americans and the contribution that the Americans have made in the Philippines, she should remember that in 1983 an agreement was made between the Americans and the Filipinos for the United States to give $900m in aid, the majority in economic aid. Last year the United States committed itself to an additional $200m and this year to another $100m. While President Aquino was in America, the House of Representatives pledged itself to a further $200m of economic aid. I am still waiting for a Press statement from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics about its latest package of economic aid to the Philippines. It seems to me that Senator Vallentine takes every opportunity she can, irrespective of the relevance of her statements to the subject before us, to criticise America. As best I am able to tell from examining her statements in the Parliament and her speeches, not once has she criticised the Soviet Union in any shape of form. It seems to be her favourite hobby to kick the Americans to death. Senator Sanders —What is wrong with that? The Americans are involved in the Philippines. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Sanders is on that band-wagon, too. Senator Sanders —Of course. I know what I am saying. I used to be an American. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is to my everlasting disappointment that Senator Sanders is not still an American; he would not be interrupting me now, if he were. The report is fair and objective in referring to the enormous deficiencies of the Marcos regime, the corruption of the Marcos regime and the incompetence of the Marcos regime. Senator Vallentine chose to criticise the present Government for its military assistance to the Philippines. As I recall it, that contribution in 1984-85 amounted to $1.35m, the lion's share of which was in terms of personnel training, primarily of a technical nature in providing technical skills. It did not provide arms or ammunition. As I understand it, the last defence co-operation arrangement provided on a commercial basis some Nomad aircraft and some logistical support in assisting in the training for the flying of those aircraft and the maintenance of them. In terms of economic aid, as I recall it, last year Australia gave $14m. I do not have the figures with me, but I think it was $14m last year and it is due to rise to $25m this year-an increase of slightly less than 100 per cent. In terms of our foreign aid outlays, that is not a bad contribution. That is in addition to the bilateral aid that is also provided. Senator Vallentine was very critical of the fact that the report makes reference to the effect that the new Philippines Government has and the previous Philippines Government had upon Australia and the Australian people. I remind Senator Vallentine, who obviously did not read even the first page of the report, let alone the last page, that the report is entitled `The situation in the Philippines and its implications for Australia'. That was the object of the report. Of course, it touched upon the future of the bases in the Philippines. Yes, the report did recommend that the bases be retained. Yes, of course, the report did recognise that that is a decision to be made exclusively by the Filipino people. In 1991 it will be the subject of a referendum and President Aquino has given her support to the maintenance and retention of the bases in the Philippines. Finally, Senator Vallentine made some comments about the New Peoples' Army, suggesting that it was a friendly, misguided group which wandered around the countryside like Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Let us understand the situation: There are over 23,000 members of the NPA under arms. Twenty per cent of the Filipino population comes into daily contact with members of the NPA. The numbers of contacts by the NPA are almost as high now as they were prior to Marcos's defeat. Nothing has changed, except that Mrs Aquino has learned that doing a deal with the communists is like doing a deal with a tiger: The reward is that you get eaten last. We have now seen some changes in her political perceptions and her views of how they ought to be dealt with. I just remind honourable senators that in 1985 the kill rate was around 14 persons a day; that is in terms of contact with the NPA. The figure is just slightly less than that now. So, her best endeavours, her best efforts at persuasion, have done absolutely nothing to dissuade or discourage in any way the NPA from progressing in the direction that it has pursued for a number of years. Senator Vallentine argues that it is because of Marcos that the NPA is there. Marcos is no longer there, yet the NPA is still there, alive, well and growing. Of course, the presence of the NPA does not relate only to the economic situation. That allows the communists to grow, but it is not the reason they are there. The NPA started in the first place for purely political reasons. Mrs Aquino ascended to government. The fact that she has not been elected is, in my view, a defect. It is unfortunate that she did not go back to the people immediately. I believe that she would be much stronger in terms of her capacity to deal with the problems in the Philippines at present if she had done that. Senator Vallentine also criticised the Government for its close support of Marcos. Both this Government and the previous Government were very measured and very careful in their contacts and relationships with the Philippines. Very few foreign Ministers have visited the Philippines in recent times. In the early days of his Government, Prime Minister Fraser did. Prime Minister Hawke made it quite clear some months ago that he had purposely not visited the Philippines because of the conduct of President Marcos. I have some concern for the future of the Philippines because I suspect that President Aquino came to government with a level of expectation, both of a political and economic nature, which will not, in the short term, be fulfilled. If there is one danger for that society it is frustration because the hopes, aspirations, wishes and desires of the people in the Philippines shall not be fulfilled in the short term. It is economically impossible, and politically it is terribly difficult. We all hope that time is on her side and that, with the goodwill she has in the Philippines and the rest of the world, events in that country will take a turn for the better. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Senator Black: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.21) —The report of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception was tabled last week. Senator Archer addressed some remarks to it. Senator Black incorporated a speech in Hansard. The conclusion one comes to as to whether telephones ought to be intercepted in the interests of the solving of crime or of preventing spies from invading Australia depends very much on one's philosophy. Certain principles should be put before the Senate: First, privacy is essential to a free society. Secondly, those who claim the need to invade that privacy bear a heavy onus to prove that need. Thirdly, whether telephone tapping should be extended beyond the Commonwealth to the States or Territories and to other offences than those provided for currently is a matter for parliament and not for law enforcement authorities. Fourthly, crime is abhorrent and should be suppressed. Fifthly, the preservation of a free and democratic society is paramount in any contest between the principle that crime ought to be suppressed and the principle that a free and democratic society should be preserved. Privacy means the ability of people to communicate about matters undetected, if you like, by authorities and unhampered by other people. If people want to discuss business, if they want to discuss their illnesses, if they want to discuss family matters of an intimate nature or even of a not so intimate nature, if they want to talk about family squabbles or simply want to exchange pleasantries over the telephone they should be allowed to do so. That is an essential reason why the integrity of the telephone should be preserved. Claims are made that telephones ought to be tapped to prevent crime. Society has agreed to that in respect of serious drug offences. One can understand that. However, whether telephone tapping powers should extend beyond that is very much a matter for parliament. It has argued that because the police could more effectively do their job if they had an unrestricted power to tap telephones, they ought to be allowed to do so. But if one follows that argument down the line, it would allow television sets to be put into private rooms, private gardens and into the bedroom, for that matter, simply in the interests of preventing or detecting crime. It would mean that children would be encouraged to inform upon their parents. It would mean that all sorts of stringent measures which are not consistent with a democratic society would be adopted. That is the real contest. A pronounced extension of police powers, including the right of unrestricted telephone tapping, poses a considerable threat to the very fabric of this society. The fabric of this society consists, amongst other things, of strong and vibrant threads of freedom, of democracy, of the ability of people to live unhampered by authority and by other people. If we allow unelected authorities to decide how much of our privacy and liberty are to be invaded and the extent to which we will be scrutinised, the ability we have to control our lives and our own community weakens and dissolves. That is the real problem with the question of telephone tapping. The integrity of telephone communications is one of those areas particularly indicative of the sorts of people we are and the sorts of freedoms we enjoy. When we consider crime and the means we have of suppressing it, we should ensure that the means do not grow into something more terrible than the crime they are meant to interdict. Those whom we place in charge of detecting crime in this community should remain under the control of the community through the parliamentary process. Simply because they demand increased power it should not be given to them. It is for society to decide the extent of the power to be held by law enforcement agencies. There is danger in propositions arising out of this report of simply saying that any time an unelected law enforcement authority wants to do something, no matter how draconian, it should be allowed to do it. That is a sure recipe for a totalitarian society which we must abhor and avoid at all costs. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.28) —I rise as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception to commend the report to the Senate. Senator Cooney has concentrated on some of the aspects of privacy which were also very important in my consideration of the brief that was given to the Committee, so I will not cover again the same areas except to say that I am convinced that if the system and proposals recommended by the report are put into effect the privacy of Australians will not be unduly affected. The Bill that was referred to our Committee was considered by the majority of the Committee, which comprised Australian Labor Party members and myself, an Australian Democrat, to be convoluted, confusing and vague in parts. It compounded the difficulties that were involved in trying to understand and apply the legislation effectively. It was because of that that we felt the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted with a much clearer and simpler structure than that which resulted after various amendments had been added to the original already complex Bill. The main differences between the Liberal members of the Committee and the rest of us seem to be in the area of whether we allow the States to manage their own interception of telephones. The main Committee felt that there would be much better control of interception if Telecom Australia were fully responsible for every interception and a body which we called a Telecommunications Interception Agency be established to manage all the interceptions for all the diverse bodies to which we were going to extend interception powers-the Australian Federal Police, which already has the powers, the National Crime Authority, which uses the AFP, various State and the Northern Territory police forces and the New South Wales Drug Crime Commission. We felt that any additions to this list should be handled by the Parliament and that if we were to extend the types of crime for which interception was permitted we would have to keep this to a bare minimum because otherwise it would be possible to distort totally the tapping process and it would become commonplace rather than a rare event in pursuing crime. There was an enormous amount of discussion as to how much we should restrict tapping but eventually the majority of the Committee came to a definition which I commend to the Government. I hope that this will be incorporated in the new legislation. The Committee recommends that we extend from serious drug trafficking offences to murder, kidnapping and organised crime associated with a number of events which we believe would give a reasonable definition of organised crime. These events involve two or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation. The events are of the kind that ordinarily involve sophisticated methods and techniques; the crimes committed are ordinarily committed in conjunction with other offences of a like kind; and, lastly, involve kidnapping, murder and serious drug trafficking offences and associated financial transactions. Because we believe that we should be able to use phone tapping not only to detect who has carried out a crime or investigate crimes that have been carried out, we also added to this list matters relating to conspiracy to commit the above offences on the basis that prevention is better than cure. This would seem to be a reasonable definition of the types of crime which could lead to legal telecommunications interception. Many people probably have the view that a vast amount of interception is going on. We received from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Federal Police evidence that the total capacity of both those organisation's was less than 75 lines at any time that could be used to operate a legal tapping exercise. When we questioned further we found that the resources available at least to the Federal Police did not allow for the full capacity to be used and only approximately 15 lines were being tapped at any one time. This did not prevent Mr Wrigley from ASIO from warning anybody who wanted to keep a conversation from other people that they should assume that the telephone might be tapped. The reason for this is not legal phone tapping but illegal phone tapping. We tried to investigate the prevalence of illegal phone tapping. We asked Telecom. It said that over the last year it had found 18 devices but this was not as a result of an intensive scan of the network but by accident during normal maintenance operations. Obviously, that is just the tip of the iceberg. The most serious problem is that there were very few prosecutions for illegal tapping. The reason basically is that tapping was carried out for domestic reasons or industrial espionage and it was difficult to prove. The suggestion that we made is that Telecom should have an audit process to ensure the security of the network. It cannot guarantee the security of the Telecom network. One of the recommendations of the Committee was that Telecom should be asked, as a matter of urgency, to check continuously the integrity of the network and detect illegal devices. In the last minute available I will say that the communications being tapped are assumed to be voice communication which may be in a number of languages. The main cost of tapping exercises seemed to be in the interpretation, transcription and perhaps translation of the material. There are now many devices coming on to the market which transfer digital signals. Again, the legislation will allow these to be intercepted. This will eventually be a much more important area for tapping than voice communication because it will allow us to follow the money trails and hit at organised crime where it hurts most-in its coffers and in its treasury. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Senator Sibraa: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(4.38) —In a previous debate I observed that the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is a preservation of the status quo. I will amplify. It is a catalogue of existing policies. Nothing new has been created in this report. It has gone through existing policies, the disarmament politics of the warm inner glow and has adopted all the policies that would allow us to mine uranium, ship it and invite nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships into our ports. It has turned no new ground. This is the major and massive failing of this report. As politicians, we owe it to our constituents not to merely follow public opinion but to lead it and perhaps to make some unpopular decisions in so doing. This report does nothing along those lines. Furthermore, it is full of internal inconsistencies. On page 648 some of the recommendations are that we should prohibit certain destabilising technologies including the further development and deployment of anti-satellite weapons. At another place in the document it says that we should maintain the presence of United States bases-North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar. But Nurrungar is the first detection stage in Star Wars. So the report welcomes the presence of the Nurrungar base. In fact, it goes further than welcoming it. It states that Australia should take it over when it is no longer useful to the United States in 10 years time. Yet the same report states that we should not help in the development of anti-satellite weapons. Another recommendation of the report stresses that we should not welcome or support in any way the deployment of the cruise missile. This is amplified at page 627, which states: The Committee considers that there should be a verifiable freeze on the production and further deployment of cruise missiles. At present, this could be achieved by negotiating a ban on flight-testing-which would prevent the Soviet Union from deploying large numbers of cruise missiles-and incorporating current U.S. and the more limited Soviet stocks into a mutual arms reduction agreements. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The time for consideration of committee reports, pursuant to sessional orders, has expired. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Publications, I present the report on the review of the cost and distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ELSTOB —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. One of the major functions of the Joint Committee on Publications is to advise on the administration of the Parliamentary Papers Series. The Series is a collection of the principal papers presented to the Parliament each year. The Series is designed to ensure that adequate copies of parliamentary papers are available for the use of senators and members; that parliamentary papers are available for sale to the public; that each parliamentary paper is available to be bound at the end of the relevant year into a series of volumes and preserved in a convenient and accessible form as a permanent record; and that, in accordance with the Parliamentary Papers Act, persons who publish any paper which has been ordered to be printed are afforded protection against civil or criminal proceedings. This report is the first major review of the Series conducted by the Joint Committee since its 1977 report. The Committee believes that this review is timely. Although the implementation of the 1977 report's recommendations resulted in major savings in the printing expenditure of the parliamentary departments, the Committee notes that the cost associated with the Series remains high. The Department of the Senate's expenditure on the Series in the past financial year, for example, was $350,400. This expenditure was the largest single component-over 50 per cent-of the Department's total expenditure on printing, which was $617,855. In resolving to conduct this review in May 1985, the Committee was aware, not only of the costs associated with the Series, but also the increasing number of papers included in the Series and other administrative problems. In conducting the review the Committee examined these issues in the context of the papers included in the Series, the production of pamphlet copies and bound volumes and the distribution of each. The result of this work is a collection of wide- ranging recommendations designed to improve the administration of the Series. Today, I would like briefly to mention the recommendations relating to two major areas: Annual reports by departments and statutory authorities; and the use of advanced technology in the production of the bound volumes of the Series. Annual Reports The Committee has become alarmed in recent years at the increasing number of organisations presenting prestige documents as annual reports. I note from the debates on the Appropriation Bills that this has also concerned some senators. The Committee's previous work in relation to the production of annual reports clearly indicates that a simple, clear format is sufficient to meet the Parliament's needs. This guideline has not been followed and the cost of these publications has added to the cost of the Series. The Committee considered a number of options to redress this problem and has proposed a package of recommendations. The major thrust of the recommendations is to encourage departments and statutory authorities to print annual reports that meet the Parliament's requirements for information and do so in a modest production style. Thus, the Committee has recommended that the current three class production system operated by the Australian Government Publishing Service be reduced to two by dropping the middle range production standard. The Committee, however, has considered the presentation concerns of some departments and statutory authorities, and has recommended that this reduction in standards be accompanied by the upgrading of cover designs allowable under Class I production. Further, it has recommended that organisations wishing to publish prestige documents annually do so separately to the annual report. The Committee noted that ministerial co-operation would be vital in ensuring that departments and statutory authorities adhere to the production guidelines when printing annual reports. The Committee will seek this co-operation and will continue to monitor the annual reports tabled in parliament. The final component of the package was to recommend that the Government consider the introduction of an annual reports Act. The Committee believes that this Act should place a legislative requirement on federally funded organisations, not only to report on their activities and account for finances, but also to enforce the production standards I have outlined. The Act would link the current variations in legislative and other arrangements that exist relating to annual reporting requirements without overriding the particular reporting provisions of the other legislation. Advance Technology in the Production of Bound Volumes The production of bound volumes is a major component of the costs associated with the Series. Currently, 110 sets of the volumes are prepared annually. The last completed set, for 1981, cost $70,300 for binding alone. The Committee considered four principal options to reduce these costs. These options were: issue of papers and the relevant indexes to enable recipients to undertake a `self-binding' program; provisions of bound volumes by subscription in order to recover the cost of production and binding; cessation of production and distribution of annual bound volumes of the Series; and issue of microform version of bound volumes. The Committee finally recommended a reduction in the number of bound volumes prepared annually to 27. This will result in a total cost saving in the order of $98,000 annually. It would, however, still maintain the four principles of the Series. The Committee also recommended that further work be done on the demand for bound volumes in microfiche. In examining the issue of microfiche, the Committee became aware of exciting new technology offering a range of options to hard copy as a means of conveying information. A substantial amount of evidence was taken on these mediums, including CD ROM-compact disc reader only memory-optical disc and computer technology. Although the evidence indicated that this technology was available in Australia, it is still in its infancy and currently is not a viable option. The Committee will monitor developments in these areas, and may at a later date be able to recommend that one of these methods be used for the Series. The Parliamentary Papers Series, although a costly production, is a vital record of the Parliament. This report seeks to balance the competing concerns of achieving cost efficiency and maintaining the principles of the Series. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.50) —I wish to acknowledge briefly the work that Senator Elstob has done with the Joint Committee on Publications. It is a truly apolitical committee. I regard this report as another example of a parliamentary committee working in the true interest of the Parliament. For over 10 years this Committee has very closely monitored the printing needs, processes and costs of the Parliament. It is worth reporting that in 1977-78 the cost of the Parliamentary Papers was $562,000-odd. In 1984-85 it was still $562,000-odd, while at the same time providing an adequate distribution. I would not go to the sweeping extent to which Senator Gareth Evans goes in hyperbole but I would go so far as to say that I doubt that there is another committee that has taken so much trouble to ensure that it has kept its costs within reasonable limits. I doubt that any other committee can say that in 10 years it had been able to curb the costs of what it was responsible for to exactly the same amount. Information communication has advanced dramatically over the last 10 years. We need to remember that in the next decade it is likely to advance even further. So most of all this Committee, the Parliament and all those associated with it have to make sure that they keep their options open and keep the whole situation as flexible as possible. I hope that the matter will be kept under scrutiny. I pay a tribute to the secretarial staff and again to the Chairman. Question resolved in the affirmative. Assent reported. Consideration resumed. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The question is that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 as amended and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 be reconsidered and that so much of standing orders 202 and 265 be suspended as would prevent amendments being moved to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.53) —Before the interruption of the debate I was about to ask Senator Gareth Evans a question. I had mentioned some time ago that I believed that not all the commissioners of the Human Rights Commission had been active in the period the Commission had been established. I wonder whether he can give us that information now. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.54) —Yes, Mr Chairman. There are no inactive commissioners on the Human Rights Commission. The commissioners are as follows: The Chairman, Dame Roma Mitchell, was appointed on 10 December 1981. Her term was extended to 9 December this year. The Deputy Chairman, Mr Peter Bailey, was appointed on the same date and his term was extended to the same date. Professor Manuel Aroney is a member and the same dates apply. Professor Peter Boyce was appointed at the same time but he resigned on 4 April 1986. Mr Marcus Einfeld was appointed on 13 April 1986 to replace Professor Boyce. His term expires on 9 December this year. Mrs Norma Ford has been a member of the Commission since 1981 and her term is still current. The same is the case with Mrs Eva Geia and Ms Elizabeth Hastings. I answered a question by Senator Walters on this question of activity or inactivity on 12 June this year. There has been no change in the status of any of the commissioners since then. Since that question was answered there have been three meetings of the Commission. All commissioners have attended these meetings with the following exceptions only: At the Brisbane meeting on 14 and 15 July there were apologies from Professor Aroney and Ms Hastings. In Canberra on 28 and 29 August there was an apology from Mrs Geia. Again in Canberra on 23 and 24 October there were apologies from Mrs Geia and from Professor Aroney, who was ill in hospital. I think that is a full description of both the membership and the role that the commissioners have played. Question resolved in the affirmative. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BILL 1985 The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.56) —I table explanatory memoranda which take account of amendments to be moved on behalf of the Government to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Committee to deal first with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985. The CHAIRMAN —Is that the wish of the Committee? There being no objection, it is so ordered. There are 17 amendments to the Bill. If the Committee agrees, I intend to deal with them in this manner: First, the Government's 10 printed amendments, taken together if the Committee gives leave, followed by the Opposition's three amendments, again taken together by leave, and then the Government's separate roneoed amendment. I would be grateful if the Minister would ask his advisers when they circulate amendments to give them some number by which they can be identified. To describe them as a roneoed amendment is not really an adequate identification. I propose finally to deal with the Australian Democrats' three amendments, again taken together by leave if it is the wish of the Committee. If it is agreeable to the Committee, we shall proceed in that way. Senator GARETH EVANS —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out the definition of ``appointed member'', insert the following definition: `` `appointed member' means the President or the Human Rights Commissioner;''. (2) Pages 7 and 8, clause 8, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Constitution of Commission ``8. (1) The Commission shall consist of- (a) a President; (b) a Human Rights Commissioner; (c) the Race Discrimination Commissioner; and (d) the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. ``(2) The President and the Human Rights Commissioner shall be appointed by the Governor-General. ``(3) The President shall be appointed as a part-time member. ``(4) The Human Rights Commissioner shall be a legally qualified person appointed as a full-time member. ``(5) The affairs of the Commission shall, in accordance with the decisions and subject to the directions of the Commission, be administered by the Human Rights Commissioner. ``(6) The functions of the Commission under paragraphs 11 (1) (f) and 31 (1) (b) and the functions of the Commission under paragraphs 11 (1) (p) and 31 (1) (k), to the extent that they relate to the performance of the first-mentioned functions, shall be performed by the Human Rights Commissioner, and a reference in this Act to the Commission or to a member of the Commission shall, in relation to the performance of any of those functions, be read as a reference to the Human Rights Commissioner. ``(7) The performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers of the Commission is not affected by reason only of a vacancy in the office of President, Human Rights Commissioner, Race Discrimination Commissioner or Sex Discrimination Commissioner. ``(8) In this section, `legally qualified person' means a person who- (a) is or has been a Judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a State or a person who has the same designation and status as a Judge of a court created by the Parliament; or (b) is enrolled as a barrister or solicitor, as a barrister and solicitor, or as a legal practitioner, of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.''. (3) Page 13, clause 17, sub-clause (1), leave out the following: ``The Minister may, if the Minister considers it desirable, establish an advisory committee or advisory committees, and an advisory committee so established shall perform such of the following functions as the Minister directs:'', insert the following: ``The Minister shall establish at least one advisory committee, and may, if the Minister considers it desirable, establish 2 or more advisory committees, to perform such of the following functions as the Minister directs:''. (4) Pages 13 and 14, clause 19, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Delegation ``19. (1) The Commission may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing under its common seal, delegate to a member of the Commission, a member of the staff of the Commission or another person or body of persons all or any of the powers conferred on the Commission under this Act, other than this power of delegation. ``(2) A member may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by the member, delegate to- (a) a member of the staff of the Commission; or (b) any other person or body of persons, approved by the Commission, all or any of the powers exercisable by the member under this Act, other than this power of delegation. ``(3) A power delegated by the Commission under sub-section (1) or by a member under sub-section (2), when exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been exercised by the Commission or by the member, as the case may be. ``(4) A delegation under this section by the Commission or by a member does not prevent the exercise of a power by the Commission or by the member, as the case may be. ``(5) Subject to any provision in the instrument of delegation, a person to whom a power of the Commission has been delegated under sub-section (1) may, for the purposes of the exercise of that power, exercise any power conferred on a member of the Commission by this Act. ``(6) In sub-section (1), `power' does not include a power conferred on the Commission by the Radical Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. ``(7) In this section, unless the contrary intention appears, `member' means a member of the Commission.''. (5) Pages 27 and 28, clause 36, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Acting President and Human Rights Commissioner ``36. (1) If the Human Rights Commissioner is available, the Human Rights Commissioner shall act as President- (a) during a vacancy in the office of President, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period when the President is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the functions of the office of President. ``(2) The Minister may appoint a person to act as President- (a) during a vacancy in the office of President, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the President is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the functions of the office of President, but- (c) a person so appointed shall not act as President during any period while the Human Rights Commissioner is available so to act; and (d) a person appointed to act during a vacancy shall not continue so to act for more than 12 months. ``(3) The Minister may appoint a person to act as Human Rights Commissioner- (a) during a vacancy in the office of Human Rights Commissioner, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Human Rights Commissioner is absent from duty or from Australia, or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the functions of the office of Human Rights Commissioner, but a person appointed to act during a vacancy shall not continue so to act for more than 12 months. ``(4) An appointment of a person under sub-section (2) or (3) may be expressed to have effect only in such circumstances as are specified in the instrument of appointment. ``(5) The Minister may- (a) determine the terms and conditions of appointment, including remuneration and allowances, of a person acting as President or Human Rights Commissioner pursuant to an appointment under sub-section (2) or (3); and (b) terminate such an appointment at any time. ``(6) Where a person is acting as President or Human Rights Commissioner in circumstances referred to in paragraph (2) (b) or (3) (b) and the office of President or Human Rights Commissioner, as the case may be, becomes vacant while that person is so acting, then, subject to sub-sections (1) and (4), that person may continue so to act until the Minister otherwise directs, the vacancy is filled or a period of 12 months from the day on which the vacancy occurred expires, whichever first happens. ``(7) The appointment of a person to act as President or Human Rights Commissioner under sub-section (2) or (3) ceases to have effect if the person resigns the appointment by writing signed by the person and delivered to the Minister. ``(8) While a person is acting as President or Human Rights Commissioner, the person may exercise all the powers, and shall perform all the functions, of the President or Human Rights Commissioner, as the case may be. ``(9) At any time when a person who is not a member of the Commission is acting as President or Human Rights Commissioner, the person shall be deemed to be a member of the Commission for the purposes of sections 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 (including those sections as applied by section 33) and sections 42, 48 and 49. ``(10) The validity of anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question on the ground that- (a) the occasion for the person's appointment had not arisen; (b) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the person's appointment; (c) the person's appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion for the person to act had not arisen or had ceased.''. (6) Page 28, clause 37, sub-clause (1), leave out ``5 years'', insert ``7 years''. (7) Page 29, clause 43, sub-clause (2), leave out ``President'', insert ``Human Rights Commissioner''. (8) Clause 44, sub-clause (3), leave out ``Subject to sub-section (3a),''. (9) Clause 44, leave out sub-clause (3a). (10) Page 30, clause 44, leave out sub-clause (5), insert the following sub-clause: ``(5) If the President is not present at a meeting of the Commission- (a) if the Human Rights Commissioner is present, the Human Rights Commissioner shall preside at the meeting; or (b) in any other case, the members present shall elect one of their number to preside at that meeting.''. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard an account of what each of these 10 amendments is about. I have shown the document in question to Senator Durack. I hope he has made it available to any other Opposition senator who is interested. I will certainly be happy to respond to any question about any particular amendment, but I think it may save time if I put on the record in slightly more accessible language than in the explanatory memorandum itself an account of why each of these amendments has been moved. I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. The document read as follows- AMENDMENT (1) This is a technical amendment which replaces the following definition: ``appointed member'' means the President or a member referred to in paragraph 8 (1) (d). The amendment is necessary because the member or members (without any special title) that were originally to be appointed under paragraph 8 (1) (d) are to be replaced by the appointment of a ``Human Rights Commissioner''. That Commissioner will have particular responsibilities in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111 (which deals with discrimination in employment and occupation) and the three Declarations, dealing with the rights of children, the mentally retarded, and the disabled, which are attached to the Bill. This arrangement will ensure that, in respect of each of the instruments in respect of which the Commission has functions, there will be a particular Commissioner with specific responsibility for discharging those functions. AMENDMENT (2) This amendment makes a number of minor changes to the original clause 8. Perhaps the most significant change is the insertion of the office of Human Rights Commissioner. Under the new sub-clause (6), that Commissioner will have specific complaint handling functions in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111 (which deals with discrimination in employment and occupation), the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on the Rights of the Mentally Retarded and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. This change ensures that there is a specific focus within the Commission for each of the community groups which are most affected by the Commission's work. Accordingly, the Government considers that, taken together with the advisory committees which can be established under clause 17 of the Bill, the new structure obviates the need for the part-time Commissioners which were proposed by Senator Missen earlier in this debate. The Human Rights Commissioner will also have the Commission's responsibility for the day to day operations of the Commission. In this regard, I refer Honourable Senators to sub-clause 8 (5). It is generally recognised that having too many part-time members on a body such as the Commission makes the body very difficult to manage. The Government's proposals achieve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of a small, cohesive Commission, while at the same time ensuring that the Commission has adequate access to the views of relevant sectors of the community. AMENDMENT (3) Sub-clause 17 (1) of the Bill deals with the appointment of advisory committees. The proposed amendment, which has been suggested by the Australian Democrats, makes it clear that the Minister must appoint at least one advisory committee. The Government anticipates that that Committee will, in effect, take the place of the present National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. The Government's other proposals in relation to advisory committees remain unchanged. Background Besides the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation, there are presently seven State and Northern Territory Committees which do work in the same area. The question of whether there needs to be advisory committees on the Convention in all or any of the States and the Territory has yet to be resolved, but may well be approached on a State-by-State basis. Paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill sets out the Government's ``other proposals in relation to advisory committees''. That paragraph says: It is at this stage proposed to establish: an Advisory Committee comprising the heads of State equal opportunity bodies to advise on matters such as co-ordination of procedures under Commonwealth/State co-operative arrangements developed under clause 16; and regional Advisory Committees, which will keep the Commission in touch with community opinion and assist the Commission in its public information and promotion work. AMENDMENT (4) This amendment, whilst it replaces in total the present clause 19 of the Bill, effectively only adds to that clause new sub-clauses (2) and (7). The effect of those additions is to recast the power of delegation in the Bill so that both the Commission and a member of the Commission may delegate. The Bill as it stands only permits the Commission to delegate. AMENDMENT (5) This amendment recasts clause 36 of the Bill to allow for the appointment of an acting Human Rights Commissioner as well as an acting President. There is no great change of substance to the provision. AMENDMENT (6) The effect of this amendment is that the President and the Human Rights Commissioner are to be appointed for maximum terms of 7 years. The increase in the maximum term of appointment will, in the Government's view, increase the prospects of attracting the best possible persons for the positions. It remains open to the Government to make an appointment of shorter duration in appropriate cases. AMENDMENT (7) The effect of this amendment is to vest in the Human Rights Commissioner the functions of a Secretary under the Public Service Act. The day-to-day staffing matters associated with the Commission will, therefore, be in the hands of the Commissioner who is responsible for administering the other day-to-day affairs of the Commission (see sub-clause 8 (5)). AMENDMENTS (8) AND (9) These amendments remove additions proposed made by Senator Missen earlier in this debate. His proposals in relation to clause 44 were related to his proposals in relation to the constitution of the Commission (clause 8), and are not now appropriate in the light of the Government amendments to clause 8. Background Senator Missen's proposed amendments to clause 44, which were agreed to by the Committee of the Whole in the Senate in March, were as follows: Sub-clause 44 (3), line 6, before ``At a meeting'', insert ``subject to sub-section (3a)''. After sub-clause 44 (3), insert the following new sub-clause: ``(3a). Between meetings of the Commission the President may, at any time, convene a meeting of the full-time members of the Commission which meeting may, subject to the control of the Commission, carry out the day to day affairs of, and perform the functions of, the Commission and for the purposes of such a meeting of the Commission a quorum is constituted by a number of full-time members that is not less than one half of the number of full-time members for the time being holding office under section 8.''. These amendments were intended to allow the full-time Commissioners to control the day-to-day affairs of the Commission between meetings of the full Commission (which was, under Senator Missen's proposals, intended to consist of 3 or 4 full-time members and 6 or 7 part-time members). AMENDMENT (10) This amendment has the effect that if the President is not present at a meeting of the Commission and the Human Rights Commissioner is, the Human Rights Commissioner shall preside. If neither the President nor the Human Rights Commissioner is present, the members present shall elect one of their number to preside. It is appropriate that the Human Rights Commissioner, who is responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the Commission, should preside in the absence of the President. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.59) —As we are dealing with this group of amendments as a whole, I will speak first in general terms as to the structure of the Commission which the Government is proposing and leave other remarks about how it may operate and so forth to a later time in the Committee consideration of the legislation. I wish to reiterate the remarks that I made on behalf of the Opposition when the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill was dealt with in Committee some months ago. I pointed out then that the Opposition was very much opposed to the new structure of the Commission which is contained in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 which the Government now proposes to amend. The Bill, as it stood before these amendments were introduced, was unacceptable to the Opposition because it restructured the Commission in a way which turned it on its head. The Human Rights Commission has existed for five years and when introduced by the Fraser Government it was envisaged that it would be a small, largely part time, advisory body to perform the function of looking at laws or proposed laws of the Commonwealth or acts and practices of officials of the Commonwealth and to advise the Government and the Parliament as to whether they, in any way, breached the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and one or two other conventions that were scheduled. The notion was that the Commission would be basically a very small advisory body, that some staff, of course, would be required, and that it would not create some new human rights industry with its own large bureaucracy. Unfortunately, this Government which has been in power for nearly four years, as a result of the funds that have been made available to the existing Human Rights Commission, which for two or three years have been about five times more than were made available under the Fraser Government, has, if not formally, changed in substance the structure of the existing Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission has obviously attracted a great many ideologues, as far as human rights are concerned, who have very much their own agendas. As has been said already in this debate by Senators Puplick and Walters, the Human Rights Commission has not worked as envisaged and there has not been the sort of control by the Commission, which we would have expected, of the advice it was giving. Why that has happened is perhaps for the history books or for discussion on other occasions. I do not want to take up time on that or to point bones at people, but I certainly support the comments of the two honourable senators and express my own disappointment at the way in which this Human Rights Commission has evolved. As I said earlier in this debate today, I look at this as an experiment that has failed. It is a lesson that we have learnt and, as far as the Opposition is concerned, we certainly do not want to see it repeated. If these new amendments were passed, it would only make things worse. These amendments will finally turn the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission into a new bureaucracy. The members of the Commission, except the President, will be all full time. The staff employed will be full time and presumably will be in number something approaching the size of the present Commission, but the numbers will be likely to get bigger and not smaller. The role that the part time commissioners had under the Fraser Government's concept is entirely eliminated. I can only presume that the President is to be part time now because the person the Government had in mind does not want to devote his full time to the job because he is engaged in a much more remunerative activity than he would be under this, but we will ask some questions about that later. These amendments will clearly totally change the concept of the Human Rights Commission which the Opposition envisaged when it introduced the Commission. As far as the Opposition's policy has developed, I have already indicated that we think we can get by very well indeed without any Human Rights Commission at all. We believe that the functions of government under the Sex Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act or indeed under any other legislation in the human rights area-such as a decent privacy Act which this Government has not done anything about in a significant way, despite all the rhetoric we used to hear from Senator Gareth Evans and others about introducing Australian Law Reform Commission reports without even reading them-should be performed by people such as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. They should perform the administrative and conciliatory roles and the actual determination functions, whether there has been any breach of the law or certainly the determination of any remedies, should follow along judicial lines or at least semi-judicial lines. Statements made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), which were pointed out to me by Senator Gareth Evans in debate earlier this year, indicate that he was thinking about, if not providing a determination function entirely by the courts, it at least being done by a body independent of the administration of the Human Rights Commission. Despite all the time that he has obviously had to think about this matter, he has not pursued that idea any further. It would have been an improvement on this proposal had there been some such division of responsibilities in that way. What we are going to end up with now is a bureaucratic body without, as I said, any part time input, apart from a President who will presumably be very busy with his other pursuits. There will be an advisory committee which has been put in as a sop to the people in the non-government organisations which were keen to participate in this exercise and whose role was acknowledged by the part time commissioners in the Fraser Government's legislation. I say no more about that. I do not think the advisory committee could be seen to be in any way an effective instrument. What we are going to have is a souped-up version of the present Human Rights Commission which will have an increased bureaucratic aspect, which will presumably maintain the same people, many of whom seem to be there because they have their own personal agendas and interpretations of what amounts to human rights, what does not and what priorities are needed, and which really will increase the size of what I call the human rights industry. In most cases it will also have very extensive powers, perhaps not quite as extensive as had the Bill of Rights gone through, but virtually all those compulsory powers will be available. There is some confusion about just how and in what cases those compulsory powers will be fully utilised. We may need to have some further debate about this matter. I am very concerned about the complexity of the legislation which will result from the totality of the amendments which the Government is now proposing. It will be more convenient to make my comments in relation to both the Bills-that is, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 1985-because the result of both those Bills and the amendments that are now proposed, particularly the amendments to the transitional Bill, will be a highly complex structure. The Government says that its intention is to rationalise the Commission so that much the same powers will be exercised whether a matter is being dealt with under the Sex Discrimination Act or the Racial Discrimination Act and that may be a worthy cause. However, functions and powers will be exercised by the new Human Rights Commissioner under other legislation-not the statutory powers that are exercised under the Sex Discrimination Act or the Racial Discrimination Act-to deal with discrimination generally. He will have different powers from the ones that would be exercised by the Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act or the Racial Discrimination Act. He will have different powers whether he is investigating a Commonwealth matter or a State matter. Generally speaking, the whole legislation is starting to get along the lines of the Income Tax Assessment Act or the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and to be a highly complex business in which the human rights bureaucracy will flourish. It will need more advice, more help and more people to cope with all this legislation and then we will have more legislation which will only create further problems. One can see what has been happening for the last 20 or 30 years in this country with the development of Federal legislation, Federal bureaucracies and the increasing size of government which has now become an enormous burden upon Australian taxpayers and it has to be wound back. Everything the Government does seems to expand that phenomenon, that tendency. This legislation, far from simplifying the administration of human rights questions in this country, will only be more complicated, greater and more expensive as a result of what the Government proposes to do. Those are the general comments I wish to make on this matter. I, and no doubt others, will be raising individual questions in this debate and proposing amendments. At this stage I simply reiterate that the Opposition has already opposed this new Commission; it will continue to oppose it and will oppose these amendments because the Opposition sees them as making matters even worse from its point of view. We will also continue to oppose this legislation at the third reading stage. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.14) —The Government's amendment does not overcome the problem we have with the definition of `discrimination'. That definition is at page 4 of the explanatory memorandum to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 but it does not overcome the problem that allows the Minister to make wide open decisions that anything he believes-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. This issue arises under the second group of amendments to be moved rather than the first batch that we are dealing with now. Senator WALTERS —I am on page 4. The CHAIRMAN —We are dealing with the 10 printed amendments moved by Senator Evans. There are subsequent amendments by both the Opposition and the Government dealing with the question of discrimination. Does your question deal with that? Senator WALTERS —I am on page 4. I do not know whether we have been given all of the amendments. The CHAIRMAN —I will just clarify the situation. We are dealing with the 10 amendments in the printed document reproduced by Senator Evans. Separate amendments dealing with discrimination will be moved by the Opposition and the Government and they are set out on separate sheets of paper. Those amendments will come up after Senator Gareth Evans's amendments have been disposed of. Amendments agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —As I outlined before we started, it is now proposed that we deal with the three Opposition amendments together if the Committee is prepared to give leave, and then the Government's amendments separately. Senator Walters —We will deal with the Government's other amendments after that? The CHAIRMAN —If the Opposition amendment fails we will deal with the Government's- Senator Walters —I thought you said that we would deal with the Government's amendments first. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.16) —Utter confusion is reigning here largely because of the way the Government has presented this legislation as I complained in the first place. We are dealing with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 as a whole. Comments-I have made some-can be made on that Bill. The Government has moved a raft of amendments-I think there are 10-to the provisions relating to the structure of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and how it will work. Some other amendments are being made to the Bill before us. I am quite aware that we are now debating the Government's own amendments and I suggest that we could debate how this new structure will operate. The CHAIRMAN —I think I can deal with the matter. The Government's 10 amendments have now been passed and the question before the Committee is that the Bill, as amended, be agreed to. I understand it has been agreed that it is appropriate, Senator Durack, if you wish, to move together-by leave-your three amendments which deal with the question of discrimination. Senator DURACK —Of course I wish to do so. However, I also wish to deal with the way in which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will be operating as a result of the amendments that the Government is making to it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.18) —We have had one opportunity to debate that matter and the amendments have now been passed as you say, Mr Chairman. There will be a further opportunity to debate the procedures of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission under the second batch of Government amendments which will come up under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 when we get to it. I suggest that if any general points need to be made that would be an appropriate time to make them. Regarding Senator Walters's concerns, as I understand it from speaking to her a moment ago, the particular matter she wants to address will now come up in the debate as a result of the three Opposition amendments which will be moved and which the Government will be resisting in favour of its own amendment on the same topic. That is a further amendment from the Government. There was some misunderstanding, based on the terminology we were all employing, but I do not think anybody's speaking rights will be prejudiced if we follow, Mr Chairman, the course you are now proposing. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.19) —Mr Chairman, as I understood it, you started by saying that we will deal with the Government's printed amendments first; we will then deal with the Opposition's amendment and then we will deal with the Australian Democrats' amendments. The CHAIRMAN —I put to the Committee at the outset-I understood it was agreed between the interested parties-that the Government's printed amendments be dealt with first. They have been dealt with and passed by the Committee. Secondly, if the Committee were so minded it would give leave for the three Opposition amendments, which deal primarily with discrimination, to be moved together with the Government's separate roneoed unnumbered amendment. Finally we would deal with the Democrat amendments, again by leave, if the Committee were so minded to give leave. After all the amendments have been dealt with it is open to the Committee to debate, in general terms if Senator Durack wishes, the Bill as amended. I think it would be appropriate, if Senator Durack wishes, to deal with the three amendments he has circulated on behalf of the Opposition. Senator Harradine —I am quite happy to go along with anything. I am quite amenable. The CHAIRMAN —The motion before the Chair is that the Bill, as amended, be agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.20) —I just indicate that it would be unusual if the procedure were adopted that the three Opposition amendments were dealt with first and if one were, in addressing oneself to those amendments, not able to address oneself to the Government's amendment and to the Australian Democrats' amendment because essentially I believe the issue is one and the same. Provided that we are able to do that, I am happy to go along with what is decided. The CHAIRMAN —I will not rule anyone out of order who wishes to discuss the relative merits of the alternative amendments that have been circulated. Honourable senators are perfectly in order to do so. At the moment we have no amendment before the Chair. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.21) —Mr Chairman, might I just say in further comfort to Senator Harradine that what I was proposing to do was in effect to have the whole debate on the Opposition amendments. In responding to the Opposition amendments, I would foreshadow the Government's alternative and no doubt Senator Macklin will foreshadow the Australian Democrats' alternative. Hopefully we can have the debate on those amendments, deal with all the points and then just formally put and pass or reject, as the case may be, the series of motions in sequence at the end of what will be a single integrated debate on these matters. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.23) —by leave-I move: (1) Pages 3 and 4, sub-clause 3 (1), leave out the definition of ``discrimination'', insert the following definition: `` `discrimination' means any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation, but does not include any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job;''. (2) Page 6, after sub-clause 3 (7), insert the following sub-clause: ``(7a) For the purposes of the definition of `discrimination' in sub-section (1), the nature of the profession, business or occupation of the person or institution for whom or for which a job is to be performed and all the purposes and objectives that the carrying on of the profession, business or occupation by that person or institution are designed to serve, including religious, moral and political purposes and objectives, shall be taken into account in determining the inherent requirements of a job.''. (3) Page 24, leave out sub-clause 31 (2). These amendments deal with the definition of `discrimination' which appears on page 3 of the Bill. I do not think that this matter has been dealt with in the new amendments which have just been passed. So we are dealing with the original Bill. The definition of `discrimination' at the bottom of page 3 is as follows: `discrimination' means- (a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment . . . and (b) any other distinction . . . that has the same effect- (ii) has been determined by the Minister under sub-section 31 (2) to constitute discrimination . . . but does not include any distinction . . . in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job; Clause 31 (2) provides that the `Minister may, by notice in writing published in the Gazette', determine that expanded definition of `discrimination'. Once the Minister gives his diktat in Fuhrer-like fashion, which is now becoming fashionable in the human rights area, the great range of new discrimination may take effect. This definition is part of the additional section of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill which has been included to justify the words `equal opportunity' in the title. This Bill now creates quite a new extensive jurisdiction in the Human Rights Commission, namely that which has been carried on in the past by the employment discrimination committees. The Bill seeks to exercise the jurisdiction of those bodies under the International Labour Organisation convention concerned with discrimination in employment. The first limb of the definition of `discrimination' which I have read out is taken directly from the ILO convention. Indeed, the extension of the definition, although perhaps not a direct take from the convention, is in a sense authorised by the ILO convention because the convention itself contemplates state parties apparently extending this range of discriminations which the convention actually prohibits. The employment discrimination committees have acted for many years in an informal way without coercive powers and, indeed, without any statutory position. That is, of course, an anathema to the human rights industry which wants more statutory powers, more bureaucrats and more coercion. It believes that the more general prohibitions and draconian remedies the better. This Bill has attempted to meet that pressure point by bringing into the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission the functions that have been performed by the employment discrimination committees. I gather that those committees will be abolished. Perhaps the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) can tell us whether that is correct assumption. The new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in exercising this function, will have the full coercive powers of the existing Human Rights Commission, as provided for in this new Bill, in relation to Acts, practices or enactments in the Commonwealth sphere. But it will not have the full coercive powers in relation to the States. It will have some powers but it will not have the full coercive powers. It will have, of course, the statutory basis of the Human Rights Commissioner. It will be able to make reports and recommend compensation and so on, but it will not have the full powers of calling up people, making them answer questions and so on which the Commissioner will have when exercising jurisdiction in the Commonwealth sphere. So here we have a glorious state of confusion first up. Of course, what the Bill really does not clearly address either is the point that sex discrimination, which is a matter of discrimination under this head of jurisdiction, and race discrimination are both the subjects of separate Commonwealth legislation-legislation which has quite elaborate exemptions which are not carried over into this legislation at all. So there will be an absolute feast of litigation about how these two things can work together. The Government has now created an absolute dog's breakfast. But that is its own business and, as far as we are concerned, it can live with it and pay for it. We are deeply concerned about the matter that has been raised by the Catholic Education Office. This matter, of course, is of great importance to all religious schools and institutions. There are absolutely no exemptions in this legislation as there are in the Sex Discrimination Act in particular in respect of their position. The Opposition's second amendment addresses this matter. The amendment proposes that the definition will not apply if there is discrimination in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job. That may be interpreted very narrowly in which event, of course, religious institutions, particularly church schools, whether they be Catholic, Jewish or of any other religion, will be in great trouble and will not have the same protections as far as this general definition of `discrimination' is concerned as they have under the Sex Discrimination Act. If the legislation is interpreted in a very wide sense, maybe the church schools would be in trouble. But we believe that that should not be left in doubt. The Government apparently has accepted the fact that there is a basis for what the Catholic Education Office has said and has proposed an amendment to meet that same question, but it does so in more narrow terms. Although the Opposition is pleased that the Government is prepared to come some of the way, I hope it may be persuaded to come all the way. Indeed that is what our amendment proposes, namely, that the nature of the particular job, which may be the basis for its being excepted or exempted from the general exclusion of discrimination, will extend to: . . . the nature of the profession, business or occupation of the person or institution for whom or for which a job is to be performed and all the purposes and objectives that the carrying on of the profession, business or occupation by that person or institution are designed to serve, including religious, moral and political purposes and objectives, shall be taken into account in determining the inherent requirements of a job. The fact is that perhaps it is not so easy, and certainly not in the time which we had available over the weekend, to draw up a great detailed list of exemptions as has occurred, to some extent, in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 in relation to discrimination on the grounds of sex, but here there is a further problem in that the discrimination that is provided for is of a very wide kind. It is not just in relation to sex and race, but there is political opinion and so on and, of course, as I have said, it may be extended by the Minister. The other amendment that we have moved is that that should not be able to be extended at all by the Minister. If the Minister wants to add further functions to other forms of discrimination he ought to come back into this chamber with new legislation and let us debate it here. Let us not have proposed by these ideologues in the Human Rights Commission what the particular flavour of the week is about discrimination, according to their minds. Already quite extensive extensions have been made to these matters in the employment discrimination committee; they have already been extended to prevent discrimination on the grounds of criminal record. That will be the first thing the Minister does, to extend this definition to prevent discrimination on the grounds of criminal record. That would be good, would it not, for somebody whose occupation entails the overseeing of trust accounts! Unless a very wide definition were taken, somebody with a long record of embezzlement could not be discriminated against in relation to that sort of employment. Discrimination on the ground of political opinion may mean that an archbishop would be forced to employ a communist or a proselytising atheist as his secretary. It could mean that I would have to employ a person whose political opinion would be totally at variance to mine as a Liberal member of parliament. Incredible as it may seem, these are some of the possible questions about and consequences of the legislation which the Government has drawn up and which we have before us. The Government's amendments do not deal broadly with those problems at all. They are simply a quick fix attempt to satisfy a new political problem in the current state of the Government's desperation to deal with any political problem that crops up. It has now seen that it has a real problem with the Catholic Education Office so it has come up with a definition of the narrowest possible kind to try to satisfy it. If it satisfies the Office, it certainly does not satisfy the Catholic bishops. The Secretary of the Australian Episcopal Conference of Catholic Bishops has already written to us all. If the Government had a few more days to consider that it may come up with another quick fix solution to fob off the Catholic bishops. But it has not had time to do that as it has taken it some days to come up with this narrow amendment to satisfy the Catholic Education Office. These people are entitled to be satisfied, but the method of doing that does not satisfy a whole lot of other problems. The amendment I have moved on behalf of the Opposition attempts to broaden this in such a way that there will be an assumption that the moral, political and religious objectives of various professions and occupations will be fully taken into account and fully observed, whatever they may be. Whether they are agreeable to the Government and to the human rights apparatchiks is irrelevant. We want to have a broad brush application of these exceptions to what is an extraordinarily broad definition of discrimination. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.36) —Let me respond by doing three things-first of all, indicating quickly the effect of the Opposition amendments; secondly, saying why we think the Opposition's amendments are misconceived; and, thirdly, describing the Government's alternative approach. The effect of the three amendments is really twofold; first of all, to remove the capacity to extend the grounds of discrimination as provided for in International Labour Organisation Convention 111 in Article 1.1(b); that is, the relevant provision is to be found, of course, at Schedule 1 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. The second thing that the Opposition's amendments do is to allow the nature of the profession, business or occupation of the employer to be taken into account in determining whether there has been discrimination which impairs or nullifies equal employment opportunity. The Government's response is that we ought not to go down these particular tracks. The first point I would make is that we are here dealing not with the aspects of the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission, in relation to which there are at the end of the day real sanctions, determinations, awards and so on, that are enforceable by the courts. As Senator Durack acknowledged, we are dealing here simply with the equal opportunity provisions pursuant to the ILO Convention that were previously the jurisdiction not of the Commission itself but of the more informally constituted employment discrimination committees. The functions of the Commission in relation to this equal opportunity area which will, as I say, simply pick up the former functions of the employment discrimination committees are much more analogous to those of an ombudsman than of the Commission exercising its functions under the Racial Discrimination Act or the Sex Discrimination Act, which is a much softer array of functions, if you like, in respect of which there are no sanctions of any significant kind at the end of the day. The basic functions are to receive complaints and to investigate those complaints, as again the ombudsman can, using certain compulsory processes; to make a report with recommendations; and if no conciliation proves to be possible then ultimately, if necessary, that report is to be tabled in the Parliament. I point out that there is no power to determine rights as between complainant and respondent, quite unlike the provisions of the sex and race discrimination acts in that respect. Certainly, there is no power to compel, either directly or indirectly through court subsequent enforcement, a respondent to pay compensation or to do any act, such as engaging a person as an employee. To that extent-I will come back to this point later-detailed exemptions of the kind that one finds understandably in the Sex Discrimination Act are simply not as appropriate, or arguably as necessary, as they are in that context. An ombudsman-type jurisdiction is necessarily a more flexible and lower key one in the way in which I believe it ought to be defined. Senator Durack —Then why are you proposing your amendment? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will come to that in a moment. Against that background, I now indicate the response to the various elements of the Opposition's amendments. We say that in Article 1.1 (b) the Convention specifically recognises that the grounds on which there may be discrimination in employment are not closed. The Opposition's amendments Nos. (1) and (3) would operate to restrict the grounds of discrimination solely to those in Article 1.1 (a) of the Convention which include, incidentally, discrimination on the basis of political opinion, which is something about which Senator Durack waxed indignant as being likely to be imposed upon him by virtue of this extension of the jurisdiction under 1.1 (b). It is already there under 1.1 (a) to which, on this occasion anyway, he is not objecting. To restrict the grounds of discrimination solely to those in 1.1 (a) would, of course, ignore Australia's obligations to consider, and introduce if appropriate, additional grounds under 1.1 (b). We argue that this is a retrograde step in the present Australian situation because the employment discrimination committees have already effectively implemented, through their existing procedures, nine additional grounds over the 13-year period of their existence. These grounds have been accepted and acted upon by the tripartite partners in those existing committees, that is to say, the employers, the unions and all Australian governments. They have not caused any fuss or difficulty in practice, that I am aware of, and there is no reason to assume, simply because the jurisdiction is being transferred to the Commission, that they will cause fuss or difficulty in the future. To remove in effect the capacity for these grounds to be considered by the Commission in exercising this ombudsman-type function would be not only not to go forwards but to go backwards in terms of what has already been achieved. As to the second part of the Opposition's amendments, to allow the nature of an employer's business to be taken into account is a formulation which is much wider than the convention's limitation based on inherent requirements of a particular job. To answer Senator Durack's interjection now, the Government has been prepared to accept the proposition from the bishops that religious bodies should enjoy a wider exemption, consistently with the provision of religious freedom in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Such an exemption is also consistent with what the Senate did, as has been acknowledged, in section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We have been prepared to do it because concern has been expressed. We have been asked to do it in relation to a particular institutional arrangement and we have taken the view that, if a cogently, forcefully expressed proposition is put to us, even if it is not strictly necessary because of the way in which it will work in practice, nonetheless if it helps to get a better appreciation of the scope and the intent of the legislation, we are prepared to look seriously at it; besides which the Pope is in the country at the moment and I suppose it is not unreasonable that we pay some appropriate parliamentary acknowledgment to that reality. The Government's alternative approach responds to the two concerns of the Opposition-not in the way the Opposition wants, but in a way that at least addresses the points that have been made. We say that Article 1.1 (b) of the Convention, to allow extension of the grounds for discrimination, must be given some effect. However, rather than leaving it to the gazettal procedure identified in sub-clause 31 (2) of the parent Bill, we are prepared to support the Australian Democrats' proposal that would enable the grounds to be extended not just unilaterally by the executive government without any review process, but by way of regulation, which is, of course, subject to disallowance in the Parliament. Senator Harradine —Like your video material committee, where you have incest now. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will leave it to Senator Harradine to pursue that particular rabbit down its burrow when we get to-- Senator Harradine —I will, and you will have to respond to it tonight. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will bear that prospect in mind with such fortitude as I can command. In the meantime, someone might scramble around to find out just what enormity we have perpetrated so far as incest and videos are concerned, so that I have some appropriate lines. (Quorum formed) I have indicated that the Government will accept the Australian Democrats' amendment in relation to using a regulations process rather than a gazettal process in extending the definition of discrimination. As to the second part of the Opposition's concerns, the Government will, as I have already indicated, move an amendment to recognise the need to give religious bodies a clear exemption that may not be included in the Convention's inherent requirements of a particular job test. That may not be included as clearly as could be the case if we spelt it out in legislation. I just reiterate that this does meet the expressed concern of the Australian Episcopal Conference and the church organisations which employ people in schools, in health care and in welfare. If I can anticipate one aspect of Senator Harradine's concerns, I know that he has argued that the further extended exemption ought to be applicable not only in relation to institutional employment but also in relation to employment by individual persons. What we say is that we simply attempt to resolve a possible doubt as to the operation of the test in Article 1.2 of the Convention in respect of the inherent requirements of a particular job. We doubt the need for the additional ground of exemption as I have said; but we are prepared to do it in the case of religious institutions. Such an exemption should be kept relatively narrow so that there is no derogation from the basic thrust and content of the Convention. I hope that, with that fairly lengthy contribution, I have indicated sufficiently what the Government's reaction is and that, as a result, we can keep the remaining part of this debate relatively short. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.50) —We have just heard from Senator Evans the Government's excuse for allowing the Minister to come up with absolutely anything he may care to choose and, in writing, publish it in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. He has said that he will move a little way and support the Australian Democrats' amendment but that he will still allow the Minister to come up with anything he likes. He says that it is in line with the Convention Concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation contained in Schedule 1. Article 1 (b) states: For the purpose of this Convention the term `discrimination' includes- (b) such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation as may be determined by the Member concerned after consultation with representative employers' and workers' organisations, where such exist, and with other appropriate bodies. If the Minister could possibly tell me that a Minister making decisions after consultation-which I presume it would be-with the Human Rights Commission only is the same as what I have just quoted I would be most surprised. The Minister says he is forced to include the provision to keep in line with the Convention. He does not tell us where in the Convention it makes exemptions on certain grounds for discrimination in regard to religious bodies. He is prepared to go along with exemptions for religious bodies, which I presume is out of line with the Convention, but he says that he must give the Minister open slather to keep in line with the Convention. I do not think the Minister realises that, frankly, we do not trust him or the Human Rights Commission to stick to a reasonable approach. It has already been said here today that we believe that unreasonable actions have been taken. Again I give an example. A medical practitioner asked one of his patients, while routinely taking a history of the patient, whether she was married. She refused to answer. He then said that if she was not willing to give him an accurate history he would exercise his right not to treat her. The Human Rights Commission intervened and said that the doctor must pay the patient damages for the dreadful and insensitive question he asked her, that is, whether she was married. The doctor was fined $1,000 which to date he has not paid. He was told to write her a letter of apology and write to a medical journal explaining to all the other doctors that they must not ask their patients that very sensitive question which could cause the patient so much harm. Such are the idiotic situations which have occurred with the Human Rights Commission. The Minister has to realise that we no longer trust him or the Commission to make responsible decisions in regard to infringements of people's rights. We want those rights defined. If the Minister finds, as he well may, that an area has been overlooked, it is a very simple procedure to come before the chamber again and move an amendment to amend the definition of `discrimination' so that it can be fully debated in this chamber. As Senator Harradine has just said, when one puts an amendment through the Parliament in a way that is not debated fully, as the Australian Democrats want to do, honourable senators may rise on the spur of the moment with no fore knowledge of what has occurred and guidelines can go through. That is not the way we want it done. We want it done using the legislative process. The Minister must realise that there is considerable opposition to this provision. The other part of the legislation the Opposition seeks to amend concerns the exemptions for what is considered to be discriminatory employment. Senator Gareth Evans has said that the Government will go along with exempting religious bodies. But he has stopped there. The amendment the Government has put forward is very narrow. The Opposition makes the exemption far more broad. The Democrats have had their own little dash at it, but it is not very effective. We believe that if there is a broader exemption there will not be the troubles which the Human Rights Commission has already found itself in. Exemptions will be made for people in a very just fashion. This will inhibit some of the stupidities which have been carried on under the name of the Human Rights Commission. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.56) —The Senate is debating amendments put forward by Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition which go to the problem in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill of the definition of `discrimination'. The definition is on page 3 of the Bill. `Discrimination' is defined as: Any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation; and any other distinction, exclusion or preference that- has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation; and has been determined by the Minister under sub-section 31 (2) to constitute discrimination for the purposes of this Act, but does not include any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job; Sub-clause 31 (2) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill states: The Minister may, by notice in writing publish in the Gazette, determine that a distinction, exclusion or preference that has the effect of nullifying or impairing a quality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation constitutes discrimination for the purposes of this Act. The explanatory memorandum talks about matters which could be the subject of elaboration by the Minister by gazettal such as personal attributes, nationality, trade union activities, physical disability and sexual preference. One wonders whether the sexual preference of paedophilia would be covered by the phrase `sexual preference'. Let me go to the question of trade union activities. So far as trade union activities are concerned, the Bill enables a Minister-not only this Minister but a Minister in any future government to determine that certain trade union activities could be regarded as discrimination for the purposes of this legislation. I have pointed out in this chamber that one of the problems with the Australian Bill of Rights was that preference causes in trade union awards could well have been seen to be under attack. As we all know, these preference clauses support the foundation of a reasonable and responsible system of conciliation and arbitration. This provision enables a Minister to gazette the fact that trade union activities-presumably, the seeking of preference clauses and the like with employers-could be regarded as discrimination. That would therefore be regarded as interference in the system of conciliation and arbitration. The Minister is now saying: `We will go along with the Democrats' proposition. We recognise that this is a Henry VIII clause'. First, why did the Government not recognise this in the first place? In other words, the Parliament is being asked to give the Executive Government full control over the future of the legislation. That is the essence of a King Henry VIII clause. The Government says: `Now that you have found us out we will go along with what the Democrats say'. The Democrats are saying that perhaps the Parliament ought to have some say in the matter. They want the Minister-this Minister and every future Minister-to have the right to make a regulation extending the definition of discrimination. Having that in a regulation would enable the regulation to be disallowed by either House of the Parliament. That proposition by the Democrats is quite inadequate. It is a denial of the right of this Parliament to ensure that matters of substance such as this are maintained in the hands of the Parliament. I will give an example of what has transpired with regulations of this character. I refer to the Australian Capital Territory Classifications of Publications Ordinance 1983. Honourable senators will recall that the Australian Capital Territory ordinance for the first time in this country legitimised the sale and hire of hard core pornography. This was the first time in law that this had happened. The Parliament, having had the matter brought before it, had what options? I remind the Parliament that this is the option that has been given to us now. We could attempt to disallow the regulation. That was the only option that this Parliament had. Senator Mason —With respect to you, Senator Harradine, that is nonsense. It would have left nothing in its place. Senator HARRADINE —What the Government was bound to do in my view was bring substantive legislation before this Parliament on that subject because it was a subject of great importance. Instead, it has chosen the route of subordinate legislation. What happened with that subordinate legislation? Attempts were made in this chamber to disallow it in an attempt to get the Government to present the substantive legislation. I remember that debate very well as will many honourable senators. Senator Walters —I remember it well. Senator HARRADINE —I was pointing to the fact that what the Government was doing was legitimising hard core pornography. I recall very well the comments that were being made at that stage. Honourable senators were worried about a girl in a bikini. Not one member of the Government supported the motion to disallow the ordinance. The Democrats supported the Government. Subsequently, the Senate passed a motion on 10 May 1984 referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Government members on that Committee had certain things to say which tended not to recommend against the ordinance. Others on the committee-Senator Archer, Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Harradine and Senator Lewis-recommended very strongly that this was a matter of such substance that it ought to be the subject of substantive legislation. That report was tabled in the Parliament. Later a Senate select committee was established. By a majority of seven to one the Select Committee on Video Material recommended-- Senator Zakharov —One was worth the seven, wasn't it? Senator HARRADINE —Senator Zakharov was the one dissenting. It recommended a ban on X-rated material-- Senator Zakharov —A moratorium. Senator HARRADINE —A moratorium on X-rated material and a tightening up of violence. It also recommended that action be taken by the Government on access of the material to children and on material being sent through the post. I have had a complaint recently that circulating throughout Australia is a magazine advertising videos depicting incest. We are a long way from a girl in a bikini! We have hard core X-rated material which depicts incest, approved of by the Film Censorship Board under the guidelines laid down by this Federal Government. Senator Zakharov —Purporting to depict incest. Senator HARRADINE —It depicts incest. The honourable senator says that it purports to depict incest. The film shows actors. This material is in a number of videos classified as X. The actors are depicting incest. I do not know whether the so-called daughter in the film happens to be the daughter of the other actor. That is beside the point. The point is that the film depicts incest. Senator Zakharov —Have you seen these films? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I have, and the honourable senator knows it. I have distributed a letter to all honourable senators today. I hope that the honourable senator will read it because it discusses a very important question. I give the Democrats and the Government the benefit of the doubt. I believe that they are not aware of the material that is available and that the bulk of the material is in the X category is able to be described properly as non-violent, dehumanising or degrading material-and beyond the pale. My letter shows clearly that one can get material off the shelves in Canberra which if possessed for distribution and circulation in Canada would be determined as being an offence. Senator Zakharov —So what? Senator HARRADINE —Senator Zakharov says: `So what?'. Senator Zakharov —Different country, different standards, probably. Senator HARRADINE —I viewed one of those videos from start to finish. It was one which Wagner, in the case of R. v. Wagner in Canada, was convicted of possessing. There is no doubt that I certainly agree with the judge. That was supported on appeal. The point I am making is that we have a similar situation in which people are saying that it ought to come under delegated legislation. It is an important matter, and this Parliament should not let out of its grasp that important matter by handing it over to the Government, because it is very difficult to disallow delegated legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.11) —I will respond to the points that have been made by Senator Walters-at least one point that was not made elsewhere-and Senator Harradine. Senator Walters again referred, as she did earlier today, to a sex discrimination case in Brisbane as an example of the horrors that might befall us if we were to accept this amendment in the context of equal opportunity and the role of the Commission in employment discrimination cases. The case concerns alleged discrimination on the ground of marital status and it has received a degree of publicity. I think it is important to set the record straight. The complaint, as I understand it, was made to the Brisbane office. The woman concerned says that she was asked in the waiting room for information about whether she was married-- Senator Walters —Tut, tut. Senator GARETH EVANS —What is that meant to imply? She was asked in the waiting room, in the presence of other people, for information about whether she was married. She was then asked again by the doctor and says she was told that unless she told him her marital status, she would not be treated. The office in Brisbane has no option to refuse to receive complaints. It must accept and investigate or deal with any complaint that is made. Several attempts at conciliation have been made, but no settlement has been reached at this stage. There has been no $1,000 fine. There can, of course, be no fine anyway under the sex discrimination legislation. At most there can be a determination that it is appropriate that some compensation be awarded and that can be subsequently upheld by a court. But there cannot be a fine in any of the criminal senses that Senator Walters and Senator Sheil are so fond of using. There has been no order for an apology. There has been no mention, of stories, as I understand it, in a medical journal. Senator Sheil —What is it if it is not a fine? Senator GARETH EVANS —I know that Senator Sheil is a medico and not a lawyer, but he is a citizen and he ought to appreciate the distinction between, on the one hand, a fine, which is the tail end of a criminal prosecution, and, on the other, a payment of compensation or of damages, if one likes to describe it in that way, which is the tail end of civil proceedings. Senator Sheil —It is still $1,000 for a storm in a teacup. Senator GARETH EVANS —Maybe so, Senator, but I am just indicating what that case was about. There has been no determination of it. It may well prove to be a storm in a teacup. It may well prove to be the case that the woman's claim was exaggerated or inappropriate and that the doctor was perfectly entitled to take details of her history in the circumstances of the case. That may be so. That remains to be determined. I am just saying that Senator Walters or anybody else should not misconstrue some of these stories and take as read the claims that are made by people who sometimes do not know the full facts. It is simply a conciliation exercise that is being gone through at the moment. I make the further point that that case did not occur in the context of this jurisdiction that we are now talking about, which is the employment discrimination or equal opportunity jurisdiction. As I said earlier, it was in the context of a much softer ombudsman-type jurisdiction than is the case under the sex or race discrimination Acts. There is a difference regarding the total environment and the total context in which these things come forward. Senator Harradine referred to the other matter in issue in the group of amendments that are before us, that is, the move from simply allowing the grounds of discrimination to be extended after consultation-not just at the instance of the Minister, but after consultation with the relevant bodies-by the Minister by gazettal process. It is now proposed that it be done by way of formal regulation, with the disallowance procedure that that entails. Senator Harradine said that that is not good enough and instanced, as an example, as he put it, of the failure of the disallowance process, a saga about allegedly pornographic videos in relation to Australian Capital Territory ordinances. I suggest that it is simply not to the point to try to draw a precise analogy between these two instances, quite apart from the merits, which it is obviously inappropriate to discuss, about whether the Senate should have disallowed at that time that particular ordinance regarding the X-rated system that has been operating in this Territory. It is not an appropriate comparison because the kind of regulation we are talking about under the foreshadowed amendment is one that will be quite narrow and simple in its scope. It will simply identify a particular head of discrimination which it is proposed be added to the ombudsman-type jurisdiction of the Commission under this equal employment function. It will be up to the Committee, after listening to the weight of the argument, pro or con, to accept or reject that extension. There were many other policy matters in issue when the video debate was going on, including, as Senator Zakharov interjected at one point, the problems that would have arisen had we been left without any regime. All of those things no doubt influenced honourable senators in voting as they did. But the particular kind of regulation-cum-disallowance procedure is one that is perfectly apt to deal with the kinds of jurisdictional extensions we are talking about. Senator Harradine asked: How on earth did this Henry VIII clause get into the legislation in the first place? How could we have possibly contemplated the enormity of allowing a jurisdiction to be extended by a simple gazettal process? I make the point that it is not so much a Henry VIII clause as a Henry I clause. It is a very minor example of the phenomenon, because the jurisdiction we are talking about is not a coercive jurisdiction, for all the reasons I have indicated previously; it is an ombudsman-type jurisdiction. The extension of it is only to occur after consultation between all the relevant parties-employers and workers' representatives, as well as government representatives. Accordingly, there are innumerable safeguards, as it were, built in against abuse, or potential abuse, of the jurisdictional extension. For all of those reasons I repeat that I do not think a strong case has been made against the course of action that the Government proposes-certainly not one, by analogy, to alleged cases that have gone astray in the past, or alleged ordinances that should have been disallowed by the Parliament, but were not, in the past. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.18) —I ask Senator Gareth Evans how he envisages the new jurisdiction will work. I refer to Division 4, which is the one we are talking about, entitled `Functions relating to Equal Opportunity in Employment'. I conceded-and he made the point-that the functions of the Commission, when acting under this division, when it is doing so in relation to an act or practice done under a law of a State, within a State, on behalf of a State or an authority of a State, are different from the powers that the Human Rights Commissioner will have in respect of the exercise of his other jurisdictions under the Act. In particular, he will not be able to haul people before him, or whoever is conducting the inquiry. He will not be able to force them to answer questions, produce documents and so on, as though he were a judge. This, of course, has been one of the objections of many people to the powers of this Commission. The Commission is assuming the jurisdictions of the equal opportunity commissions, which were non-statutory, informal bodies. As far as I am aware, their activities were not publicised and apparently they achieved a solution to complaints in a very informal way. Although this Divison excludes coercive powers, nevertheless there are some provisions which I believe will mean that the Commissioner exercising the jurisdiction we are talking about now will have significant powers. I refer particularly to clause 35. It provides that after an inquiry into an act or practice of the sort we are talking about, if the Commission finds that the act or practice constitutes discrimination, it is to serve a notice on the person who is alleged to have offended this prohibition setting out its findings and its reasons. It may include in the notice a recommendation preventing a repetition of the act. The notice may include any recommendation by the Commissioner for the payment of compensation to or in respect of a person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the act or practice or some other action to reduce the loss or damage. The Commission shall include in any report to the Minister relating to the results of the inquiry particulars of any recommendations. The report shall also inform the Minister whether the person has taken any action. So the Commission will be able to publicise the finding that there was discrimination in any one of the vast range of categories of discrimination, but may also include in its report a recommendation for the payment of compensation. If the act or practice is in relation to the Commonwealth Government I take it that the Commonwealth Government and not the public servant who has been guilty of the actual practice would pay the compensation. In the case of an act or practice of an individual-for instance, he may be a self-employed individual or employed by a company-if there is a recommendation for the payment of compensation who is the person who will pay the compensation? Will it be paid by the State Government, the Commonwealth Government or whatever? Admittedly, it cannot be enforced. There is no means to do it. There is a provision for a recommendation that compensation be paid. The legislation simply says that it should be paid to or in respect of a person who has suffered a loss as a result of this act or practice. Coming to the point about the so-called lack of coercive powers, those powers that I have mentioned, of being able to force people to give evidence and produce documents and I presume to attend before the Commission to take part in conciliation and so on, are absent in the case of discrimination within the States as against a matter which is within the Commonwealth area. Nevertheless, there will be a fairly elaborate end to these proceedings along the lines of the clause I have read out. In particular, the matter will be published to the Minister, who can make hay if he likes to if he does not like the particular person or body concerned. He could make lots of political capital no doubt under the privilege of Parliament if he so desires. He could virtually force the person, by virtue of such publicity, to pay money which has been recommended. Generally speaking, a very undesirable result could occur even though there is no normal legal remedy provided for in this case as there is under the sex or race discrimination legislation. The Government seems to be proceeding on the basis that as there are no coercive powers we need not worry much about these things. I would like the Minister to explain just how the Government sees that particular provision of the Bill working in practice. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.26) —Very briefly, I think the short answer is that the Government sees this provision working essentially in the same way as the procedural provisions in the Ombudsman Act now work. They are for nearly all practical purposes identical to these. There is a sanction at the end of the day in terms of the kind of publicity which could be associated with an adverse report from the Commission just as there is a sanction associated with adverse publicity which attaches to an adverse report from the Ombudsman that is tabled in the Parliament. Senator Durack —Does the Ombudsman ever recommend the payment of compensation? Senator GARETH EVANS —He is capable of doing so. Senator Durack —Has he ever done it? Senator GARETH EVANS —He has done so, I believe, on a number of occasions in the context of the public sector, not the private sector as well, which is a relevant difference here. One can only repeat that which Senator Durack has acknowledged; that there are no coercive provisions in all of this. There is no capacity to determine rights as between complainants and respondents. There is no capacity to compel a respondent either directly or indirectly through some subsequent court process to pay compensation or to do any other particular act. That is a distinction which is not to be brushed aside. It is a formidably relevant distinction in practice. As to the way in which it will operate in practice, as with everything else that depends a lot on the good sense and judgment of the people who are exercising the functions. One can only assume, again on the analogy of metaphor of the Ombudsman which is so relevant here, that the functions will be exercised in a way which is sensitive and appropriate in the years ahead. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.28) —Mr Chairman, before I make my remarks on these provisions I would like, with respect, through you to draw attention to standing order 405. I suggest that as a matter of courtesy honourable senators should speak in Committee only when they have received your call. I have noticed a slight but increasing tendency in the chamber for that not to happen. I would like to raise that matter initially. The CHAIRMAN —Honourable senators do not speak without my call. You have my call now, Senator Mason. Senator MASON —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am delighted that I have it. I rise in this debate to speak briefly to the matters raised by Senator Harradine two or three speeches ago. I recall that the circumstances in which disallowance was threatened or considered of the Government's Australian Capital Territory videotape legislation were rather different from what Senator Harradine said. As I recall, I moved for disallowance but the Australian Democrats exacted some very considerable concessions from the Government. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I do not want to interrupt Senator Mason in full flight but he is now reopening the whole debate about the Australian Capital Territory video ordinance, which may have some marginal relevance, I acknowledge, as a demonstration of someone's unhappiness with the disallowance procedure in a particular case, but to get into a detailed analysis and discussion of the rights and wrongs of the procedures that were followed really takes us way outside the ambit of this debate. Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, I wish to speak to the point of order. I think it is entirely appropriate that Senator Mason, on behalf of the Democrats, is enabled to deal with the same matter as I dealt with. The point I made was that this was a matter of substance and it ought to be dealt with by substantive legislation, not delegated legislation. I think Senator Mason should be allowed to speak on it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Committee is considering the three amendments moved by Senator Durack. I said at the outset that I would permit discussion of the alternative amendments that have been foreshadowed-one by the Government and three by the Democrats. Senator Harradine did raise in debate the question of the suitability of using delegated legislation. Senator Mason is in order in discussing matters that have been raised but I think he should confine his remarks to the effect on this legislation. In that sense he is in order. Senator MASON —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I take strong exception to the intervention of the Minister in this matter. I think he is taking a censorial role, which he is increasingly adopting as he gets older. This is to be greatly regretted. The point I was making was that we did prevent violent and sadistic material from coming in at that time and we ensured that the material was properly classified. More importantly, I remind Senator Harradine that the Joint Select Committee on Video Material was set up by consensus and agreement of this Parliament to see whether we could get a community consensus on all the matters he has been discussing. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MASON —Just before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I raised briefly, and will continue to debate only briefly, a matter raised by Senator Harradine because I think it is important that these matters, especially when they lie sometime in the past, be represented as accurately as possible in any kind of debate. I sympathise considerably with the view that Senator Harradine put. I understand his concern and I am concerned at the extent to which video tapes, to which many people take exception, are current in all parts of Australia. I remember when we discussed this matter that several points arose. One point was in relation to Senator Harradine's comments on the part of the Australian Democrats in possibly disallowing the regulatory apparatus in this area. I point out that the Democrats did get from the Government two very important concessions. One was that classification, which is virtually censorship of this material, should not be voluntary for the industry but mandatory-in other words, necessary. The other was that material that was violent and sadistic-in other words, that had a sexual association combined with violence-under the Customs regulations would not be permitted into the country. We regarded those as two very important concessions from the Government. The other point that needs filling in is that if, indeed, those regulations had been disallowed they would have left a completely inadequate apparatus behind which would not have solved the problem. Just to go a little further, I think Senator Harradine will recall, as will other honourable senators, that by consensus the Senate formed a select committee, which eventually became a joint committee, which was to-- Senator Harradine —No, it didn't. Senator MASON —I think the whole point of the operation has been to try to see whether some sort of community consensus could be arrived at in this matter. That Committee hopefully will report and when it does I suggest that we can then take that matter further, but I do not think this debate should allow the conclusion to be left that there are members of the Committee of the Whole, especially Democrats, who tolerate the situation and who have somehow contributed, as Senator Harradine said, to the widespread purveying of video tapes on incest and matters of that kind. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.03) —I think it is rather passing strange that we have heard those words from Senator Mason on behalf of the Australian Democrats. He seems to have entirely missed the point of what the issue is here. He has been trying to justify some stance the Democrats took at a time when there was a united ticket between the Democrats and the Government, I think with the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, when I remember Senator Gareth Evans saying `If I have to do that to buy your lousy little vote I will' and, of course, he did. The Democrats agreed to some pathetic little amendment to these regulations. In his own words, it was a very small price that the Government paid for the Democrats' lousy little vote. I think that was one of the most disreputable incidents that I can remember in this Senate. As Senator Harradine pointed out, they were useless amendments. He pointed out how useless they were in a very relevant comment he made about the problem we have before us today. If the Democrats had seriously addressed the problems of this legislation instead of putting up some pathetic amendment, which we will deal with later, as the only concession it was prepared to make on this question, we would be addressing an issue of some substance. The substance is that the Government has proposed a Bill which has a definition of discrimination that is in very wide terms. As I read out earlier, it encompasses any distinction or indiscrimination-I will use a word that people can understand and not the hopeless legislative lingo of the parliamentary draftsmen-made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin that has the effect of impairing or denying equality of opportunity in employment. As if that is not wide enough, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill goes on to refer to any other distinction or discrimination that is determined by the Minister and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The Government admits that the sort of discrimination that will be promulgated by the Minister, the categories of which are never going to be closed under the demands of the human rights industry which the Government proposes to assist to flourish, has already been expanded to include criminal records. When employing somebody, one cannot discriminate on the basis of somebody's criminal record. Senator Mason is now leaving the chamber. He has lost interest in this, having defended his contribution to developing video pornography in this country. One cannot discriminate on the basis of a criminal record, age, marital status, medical records and personal attributes. How is anyone going to interpret that? Nationality, trade union activities, physical disabilities and sexual preference are all additional grounds of discrimination which the Minister is likely to promulgate under legislation which cannot, as drafted by this Government, be disallowed even by the Parliament. The purpose of the Opposition's amendments is to prevent the Minister being able to do that. Senator Harradine has supported those amendments but we can conclude by Senator Mason's contribution that obviously it is not going to be supported by the Democrats. Senator Harradine —I am supporting your amendments. Senator DURACK —Senator Harradine is supporting our amendments to prevent that being done. Senator Mason and the Democrats are not going to. They are going to allow this open-ended power of the Minister to proclaim any category of discrimination that he sees fit on the advice, no doubt, of the human rights industry. The Opposition's amendments are to prevent that happening. Senator Harradine is supporting them and in support of them he has referred to the experience we had in the Senate very recently in regard to the regulations on video pornography. He has brought forward and explained how that power given to a Minister or to censorship bureaucrats has been grossly abused. He brought forward a very strong argument by way of that example as to why we should not do this. All that Senator Mason has done is to defend some sordid little agreement whereby the lousy little vote of the Democrats, to quote Senator Gareth Evans, was bought by some pathetic amendment that was agreed to, but it did not address in any way the central issue of principle we are debating now and in support of which Senator Harradine has given this example. I raise with Senator Gareth Evans the question of the position of individuals and maybe even companies or institutions which will be alleged to have breached the prohibition of discrimination of these various kinds. I pointed out that in future the Human Rights Commissioner will be able to investigate claims of such discrimination; he will be able to make findings and then report to the Minister who, no doubt, will use it for his own political purposes in parliament if he does not like the person concerned for some reason or another. The Human Rights Commissioner can recommend the payment of compensation to, or in respect of, a person whom it is said has been discriminated against. Senator Evans's answer to that situation is: `These are powers like the Ombudsman has. The Ombudsman can have these inquiries. He can report to the Minister, the Minister can do these things and, apparently, recommend compensation'. I do not think that has happened very often. The answer we have had from Senator Evans is totally irrelevant to the question we have before us because the Ombudsman's jurisdiction is confined to the acts or practices of Commonwealth public servants or, in the case of State ombudsmen, State public servants. If it is found that the public servant has been guilty of some act or practice contrary to good administration, or whatever it may be, he may be exposed and compensation may be recommended. But here we have the case of an ordinary private citizen who is alleged to have breached the anti-discrimination rules, vast categories of which I have already mentioned, and who, under this legislation, may not be able to be fined or ordered to pay a sum of money by a court which is what we would expect if that is what the law believes should be a just sanction. Here we have a case where a bureaucrat, in the shape of a human rights commissioner, who has all the panoply of one kind or another of this legislation, can report to a Minister and advise him that Mr X or Mrs Y-an ordinary citizen of this country-should pay a sum of money by way of compensation for the heinous crime he or she has committed. Earlier Senator Walters gave an example of a piddling matter found to be discrimination by the Human Rights Commission in Queensland. We could give countless examples of that situation. However, the Human Rights Commissioner says that that person should pay maybe $20,000. I believe the going rate these days in this area is up to $40,000. We know what sort of blackmail is pursued in these areas. Employers are frightened out of their wits about the sorts of complaints that are made and to buy off the publicity they will pay out some thousands of dollars to be relieved of the publicity from the busybodies in the human rights industry. This Government is giving power to people to do exactly the same thing, to pillory and to publicise their judgments about another citizen's conduct. This matter has nothing to do with governments or public servants; it has everything to do with ordinary human beings and Australian citizens in any part of Australia who can be pilloried and pressured in this way. If a Minister takes up such a person's cause in Parliament under the privileges of parliament he can put the most enormous pressure on people to pay at the moment probably upwards of $30,000 or $40,000 in so-called compensation by individual citizens of this country. It is a most disgraceful method of enforcing law that I have ever heard. It has been promoted by this Government in this legislation and it has been unashamedly promoted by Senator Evans, who is supposed to be a great defender of people's civil liberties. This legislation is the end result of this activity. To say that it is a precedent set by the Ombudsman Act is pathetically irrelevant. We are talking here not about public servants; we are talking about ordinary citizens of this country, not just employers by any means. We are talking about people in all categories-any employers in small business, big business and charitable institutions. That is why the Opposition brought forward an amendment which will try to cut down the ambit of this provision so that people in employment can have some religious, moral or political objectives and can at least discriminate on the basis of their own conscientious beliefs in that way. The Government has rejected that amendment of the Opposition in favour of some very narrow amendment. I ask Senator Evans this question: Is he prepared to employ on his staff a prominent member of the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Australian Democrats? Does he ignore that? If an applicant for a job on his staff told him that he was a very prominent member of the Liberal Party, would Senator Evans ignore that in his decision to employ or not to employ that person? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.17) —I thought Senator Evans was about to answer Senator Durack's most reasonable question because that question would affect every single one of us in this chamber. I am quite sure that one of the first questions any of us, when employing new staff, would ask is: `Have you been or are you a member of a political party?'. The Democrats do not have to ask that question because they have no philosophy, but the rest of us have a philosophy, and we would only have someone on our staff who has a philosophy that could certainly work in conjunction with ours. I can quite understand why the Democrats do not have that problem. They do not have any philosophy and there is no reason for them to ask the philosophy of any member of their staff, so I do not think they need to worry about that question. However, I would very much like the Minister to answer that question because if Senator Durack had not asked I certainly would have. Let me set the record straight. Senator Evans has been handed notes from the bureaucrats regarding the case I mentioned in Brisbane. I agree with him that the matter has not been settled yet because that doctor refuses to pay the amount he has been asked to pay. Senator Gareth Evans —Asked to pay by the Commissioner or asked to pay by the applicant? Senator WALTERS —Will the Minister let me finish? He has refused to pay the amount he has been asked to pay; he has refused to write a letter of apology and he has refused to write a letter to the medical journal. If Senator Evans wants a little more information, at one stage the Human Rights Commission threatened to go through all of the doctor's confidential medical files to see whether he had indeed designated his patients as Mrs, Miss or Ms. He refused to hand over those files and the Commission eventually backed off. The only reason that this matter has not been finalised is that the doctor, I believe quite rightly, is saying that this is a lot of rubbish. The Commission has wasted a tremendous amount of taxpayers' money. It is wasting its own time. It should be dealing with things in a far more responsible manner. I did not suggest at all to the Minister that these new amendments would alter the situation. I was purely pointing out at the time that the Minister is being given open slather to bring in absolutely any sort of red herring that he may consider to be a discriminatory practice. The Minister did not understand that we on this side of the chamber do not trust him one iota. We certainly do not trust the Commission and I have just explained the reason for that. So I think the Minister might have a word with the Commission and check up on the facts that he was given. It is true that our amendment in respect of exemptions is far broader than what the Minister is putting forward. It is not a case of exemption being given in the case of purely religious organisations. I think it is quite essential that there be other grounds for exemption. As Senator Durack said, all the purposes and objectives that the carrying on of a profession, business or occupation by a person or institution are designed to serve, including religious, moral and political purposes and objectives, should all be taken into account in determining the inherent requirements of a job. It is ludicrous to say that the Minister can make his own decisions, whether they are in writing, whether they are gazetted or whether, indeed, they are brought in only as regulations, which is the Australian Democrats' preferred option. The problems in respect of this have already been pointed out. We on this side of the chamber believe that it is imperative that the description of discrimination be in legislation, that the discrimination be defined very clearly and that any alteration that is made must again come before this place to be fully debated so that the people of Australia can know very clearly the role that the Commission is playing in their private lives. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.23) —I am perfectly happy to answer Senator Durack's question. Let me first, however, respond to Senator Walters's further foray into the Brisbane case by saying that I have no doubt that the woman complainant in that case has sought compensation of the figure mentioned and has sought apologies and letters to the medical journal and so on. It may well be that her settlement terms may well have been communicated to the doctor by the Human Rights Commission. My information is entirely consistent with that account. But the Human Rights Commission has not made any determination on the matter. It has simply sought to know what the response of the doctor is in order that the matter can be conciliated. It may perfectly well be the case that the woman has no credible-- Senator Walters —Why did it pick up such an idiotic case? Senator GARETH EVANS —Because of the whole philosphy of the legislation which I appreciate may not be consistent with the honourable senator's views of the world. But people out there in the community are discriminated against daily in their employment and in other ways by people who are prejudiced and bigoted and insensitive to the claims that people make for respect for their own particular differences. It is important, if we are to be a civilised society that pays regard to those sensitivities, that we give some sort of opportunities for people who are discriminated against unfairly, unreasonably and on the basis of crude prejudice, as distinct from some rational ground, an opportunity to do something about it. They cannot do very much about it in the context of the employment discrimination situation we are here talking about because all they can ask for is not a determination or anything of that kind; they can only ask for an ombudsman-type of intervention. I do not disagree with Senator Walters's account of the case but I just think honestly she is trying to draw a bit more from it than the facts will allow at this stage. If the Commission had gone striding in there demanding that a doctor do all sorts of things without any rational foundation for it, making strident determinations and so on, there might be a case for complaint. But a conciliation process is something very different from that and this particular case has by no means, as I understand it, run its course. Senator Durack's question was a perfectly reasonable one, but there is a perfectly straightforward answer. Of course I would not appoint to my personal staff someone who was overtly and prominently a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia or anyone else with views politically opposed to mine. In doing so I would be perfectly within my rights under the terms of this legislation because what the legislation does in its definition of discrimination, which is relevant to the job situation we are talking about-discrimination on the ground of political belief-is make it clear that the section does not apply to any distinction in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job. That picks up the language of the relevant clause of the International Labour Organisation Convention and, in casting the legislation in these terms, we are simply picking up the perfectly rational and understandable qualification in the Convention. Obviously it would be an inherent requirement of a job working for a politician, for a Minister in a government, to have political views which made it possible for that person conscientiously and effectively to advance the cause of the political party of which his boss was a member. Of course that is the case; of course that is an inherent requirement of the job; and of course the legislation would have no application in that situation. The reason why I paused a little before jumping to my feet in reply to Senator Durack was that I could not believe that I had missed something so obvious about the way in which the legislation is cast. I needed a moment just to check the terms of it and the Convention to make sure that I had not been suffering some- Senator Durack —You needed someone to tell you what was there. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I needed someone to calm me down while I got my breath back because someone could be so comprehensively misled in his understanding of the legislation as the honourable senator obviously was to ask such a question which demonstrated such a complete lack of knowledge of what the basic principles of the legislation were. It is a pity that so much of this debate on human rights and on discrimination has been cast in a strident and rhetorical form which simply does not pay proper regard to the detailed, careful and qualified way in which all of these particular proposals have been cast and put together. It is good if we can get rational debate on these things. I am perfectly happy to contribute for as long as is necessary to a rational debate. But it does not help when scaremongering and misrepresentation, deliberate or inadvertent, takes place, and that, unfortunately, has been a characteristic of too much of the debate on this issue. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.28) —I am not really surprised that Senator Evans, having been given advice by the official sitting next to him, is now able to come up with some sort of an answer which he could not come up with before. It is apparent to anybody who reads this legislation, which I clearly have done although Senator Evans does not seem to think so, that it contains a statement that discrimination is based on anything really-race, colour, political opinion or whatever-but that it does not apply in respect of the inherent requirements of a particular job. Let us just stop for a moment and analyse the situation in the practical world. The inherent requirements of a job are, of course, the specifications which usually appear in an advertisement, the duty statement or whatever is laid down. People apply for jobs in accordance with this information. I presume that Senator Evans is now saying that when a member of parliament advertises a job he will have to say in his advertisement, if he is a Liberal, that anybody who is a member of the Australian Labor Party, the Communist Party, the Australian Democrats or whatever should not apply because the inherent requirement of the job is that the applicant should be a Liberal supporter. The reverse would apply in the case of a Labor senator advertising a job. If I drafted an advertisement along those lines I wonder whether the Department of Administrative Services would be prepared to approve it and pay for it. That would be one of the first problems that I would have to overcome. The next thing one would have to consider is whether that sort of qualification would in fact be an inherent requirement of the job. I said earlier that this whole Act depends on who is interpreting it and how that person interprets it, because if it is very narrowly and strictly interpreted that person may well come up with the conclusion that, although one of the senior members of staff or a policy adviser should be of the same political persuasion as an honourable senator he is to work for, or at least not strongly opposed to it, would that be an inherent requirement for a junior secretary? Senator Gareth Evans —Probably not. Senator DURACK —Is Senator Gareth Evans going to have on his staff such a junior secretary? Is that what he is saying? Senator Georges —It could be. Senator DURACK —Is the honourable senator going to? Senator Georges —Could be. Senator DURACK —I would like any Labor senator to get up and tell us that he or she is perfectly prepared to employ on his or her staff in a junior capacity anybody who is a strong Liberal supporter. Let them all get up, there are not many of them, and say yes, they are prepared to do that. I am raising this hypothetical case purely as an example of the problem that legislation of this kind creates. Earlier I raised the example of a Catholic archbishop who wants a secretary and who is confronted with an applicant who may be a strong proselytising atheist or a communist. Is the archbishop going to be prevented from employing that person or is he entitled to refuse to employ him because it is an inherent requirement of the job, as secretary to a Catholic archbishop, that the person be a member of the Catholic faith, or at least certainly not a communist or a proselytising atheist? These are very difficult questions and the real essence of this problem is: Who is going to decide this issue? Under this legislation we have the appointment of a Human Rights Commissioner. Maybe we ought to know more about what the Government has in mind. Who will it appoint as the Human Rights Commissioner? What will be his qualifications and who will he be? We have heard a lot of rumours about who it might be. Maybe the Government could scotch those rumours, maybe it cannot, but that is a question for later. Let me emphasise that here we are going to have not a Minister answerable to the Parliament, not a court and not a judge whom the people in this country fortunately still respect but we are going to have a member of the pure bureaucracy, an administrator, a human rights commissioner, appointed by this Government for seven years. In the end this person will decide what are the inherent requirements of a particular job. In most cases he will probably decide that on the advice of some member of his staff employed by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. So we are going to be in the hands of unseen bureaucrats who are going to decide this question, and they are going to be able to decide that question without any proceedings or arguments. When they come to their finding, without hearings, without arguments and without evidence-we know the sort of hidden agenda that many of these people have-the consequences which I have already outlined will follow. Senator Evans has not answered me on that because I want to know-I want a very clear answer on this-what is the Government's view on the powers that are given to this Human Rights Commissioner to report his findings publicly and to report that the person should pay, very likely in a serious case, a substantial amount. Senator Walters has given the case of $1,000-- Senator Grimes —Where is she? Senator DURACK —She has been here a lot longer than the honourable senator, and she has contributed a lot more to this debate than he ever could. The going rate to buy off people, who are blackmailing others, to buy off frivolous allegations under this Act, is up to $10,000. Senator Evans, Senator Grimes and the Government would not know this because they do not know how the ordinary world works and they certainly do not know how business works. We know that under this Act damages of $30,000 to $40,000 have been awarded. In a serious case the Government will have reports coming in from the Human Rights Commissioner saying that an ordinary citizen of this country-one who has never had any proper hearing before a properly constituted tribunal in this land, such as a court, and who has offended the views of a bureaucrat appointed for maybe seven years or longer if he is an ordinary member of the staff-has offended this particular provision of discrimination. He is publicly told, and a Minister in the Parliament under privilege of parliament can say he should be paying $30,000 or $40,000 by way of compensation. That is the state of affairs that is created by this legislation. That is the state of affairs that Senator Evans has been defending in this debate, and that will be the end result if we pass this legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.38) —I do not want Senator Durack to think that I am evading replying again. I have some difficulty in working out precisely what it is he wants to tell me. I can say only, as I have said before, that there is no procedure in any of this, as it affects discrimination in employment, for decision making in the language which Senator Durack employs. Certainly there can be, after a conciliation process has broken down, something in the nature of a report containing recommendations in a particular case that some form of compensation would appropriately be payable, but it is not in the nature of a decision, it is not in the nature of determination, it is not in the nature of anything that is enforceable by the courts; it is not in the nature of anything more than an objective recommendation on the part of someone who has sought conscientiously, as I am sure officers of the Commission will, to resolve complaints in a sensitive and sincere kind of way. That is what the processes of this legislation are all about. I think the only consolation I have in listening to Senator Durack is the suspicion that he does not really believe his own rhetoric. He is far too reasonable a man for that, in terms of contributions he has made to previous debates on this matter. I think that he is just getting as tired as the rest of us and, as the session is now drawing to a close, feels the need to add a bit of colour to his rather staid life over there on the Opposition benches and is drumming up a few fantasies in which he really does not believe. It is possible on almost any legislation in this Parliament to construct elaborate and fanciful scenarios based on subtle misrepresentations or misreadings of particular institutional machinery or provisions. In practice there will be ample checks and balances built into the way all of this works, just as there have been no examples that anyone has been able to point to of cavalier disregard for individual rights in the way in which the employment discrimination committees have worked-they are the best models that we have for these provisions-or in the way in which the ombudsman provisions have worked; albeit, as Senator Durack has said, in the public sector rather than with an overlap into the private sector as well. I genuinely believe that the standards that we are acknowledging here are those which are widely prevalent in the community and are highly unlikely to be breached except in exceptional circumstances. In those exceptional circumstances, it is perfectly appropriate that there ought to be the really very soft, conciliatory, reporting, recommending but not deciding or determining, mechanisms that we have here. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.41) —I just want to disabuse the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, of any illusion he may have that I am putting on some show here in this debate. We have had the experience of five years of the operations of the Human Rights Commission. If that record had not been so dismal, maybe some of the scenarios that I have suggested would not have occurred to me. I do not know where the checks and balances are that Senator Evans was talking about. This is a purely administrative process that can be misused by Ministers, if they so desire, and in that way great pressures can be brought upon people to pay up or buy off the threat of publicity. In this country we are very familiar with the way in which that sort of thing can be done by people who have hidden agendas and who are determined to promote them. We are not talking about the employment discrimination committees that Senator Evans persists in referring to as EDCs. Those committees have operated privately without any sort of statutory status or powers in any shape or form. I am not here to say what a great job they have done. They may or may not have performed satisfactorily. The fact is that the Government has now abandoned those and is putting this jurisdiction in the hands of a new, souped-up Human Rights Commission whose record over the last few years speaks for itself. We have plenty of examples of the way in which that Commission has operated and the way in which its staff have taken over. They have been great promoters of this new human rights industry. One of the most classic examples of the way in which the Human Rights Commission has operated is the way in which it banned the former shadow Attorney-General from being able even to enter the premises of the organisation. He was just banned by the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission denied one of the most elementary of human rights to a person, in particular a person with such a great interest in its operation as the then alternative Attorney-General. Those are the sorts of things that are on the record. That is the sort of behaviour of which this body has been capable. It is the sort of thing that leads to real fears-not illusions but real fears-that people of that kind, if given these sorts of powers, are very likely to abuse them. They have abused them in the past and are likely to do so again. They are given the power not only of so-called administration of the law but also to interpret very vague definitions such as this one of discrimination and what are or are not the inherent requirements of a job. What a pathetic situation it is. Every time I think of it I am just amazed that Senator Evans thinks there is a very simple interpretation of or answer to that. The interpretation will be made by a person who has had no arguments put to him or her; there will have been no hearing. That person will decide the facts, interpret the law and apply the law as he or she has interpreted it to those facts and may well embark upon a great public relations campaign, forcing a person to pay up to $30,000 or $40,000 in compensation. I just want to assure Senator Evans that I am not embarked upon any political exercise here. I am certainly not putting on some sort of a show. I have a very deep conviction that this is the sort of thing that could occur, and I believe will occur on the basis of previous experience, if this Bill goes through. Senator Evans really has not given a very satisfactory answer in relation to the sore way in which it could be abused. The reason for that is very simple. Senator Evans is an academic lawyer who, before he came to this place, was trained in legal thinking, in what I think was probably a fairly close strait-jacket. Senator Gareth Evans —I actually made a buck at the Bar for two years, you know. It was quite remarkable that I kept the wolf from the door, really. Senator DURACK —He may have been at the Bar for a year or so before he came here. But, essentially, he is of an academic legal background. The problem with that sort of training is that one sees coercion only in terms of legal sanctions, legal hearings, and so on. The world knows that there are all sorts of pressures that can be applied to force people, for very subtle and perhaps in many cases not so subtle reasons, to take certain steps. One of the less subtle and more effective pressures that can be brought to bear on people is the pressure of public exposure, particularly in Parliament where one has no redress against those exercising that privilege. It is an illusion for Senator Evans to believe that there are no traditionally coercive powers in this case. It is because of the sorts of subtle and perhaps not so subtle means of forcing people to comply, which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have under this legislation, that the Opposition is deeply concerned and has proposed this amendment which, when all is said and done, does nothing more than what Senator Evans has already said is perfectly reasonable. He said that people must be able to state what the inherent requirements of a job are. An individual must be prepared to determine those just as a politician would not be prepared to employ on his staff somebody who was strongly opposed to his political convictions. The same applies to people with strong religious convictions. All the Opposition amendment does is to spell out clearly that the particular requirements of a job may well include religious, moral or political purposes or objectives and that that can be taken into account by anybody making a decision to employ a particular person. That is what the Opposition amendments seek to do. They also say that if the Minister wants to expand the categories of discrimination he must come back into the Parliament, argue his case and get the Parliament's approval. Those are the objectives of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. We certainly will strongly pursue them. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.50) —The Minister is unaware of exactly what is happening in the case in Brisbane. There has already been a full inquiry. At the end of that inquiry no satisfactory arrangement had been reached. All this was over a doctor daring to ask a women patient whether she was married. Senator Georges —What did he do? Did he refuse treatment on the basis that she was married? Senator WALTERS —I will explain it to Senator Georges. It is very simple. A woman came in to a doctor's surgery. He was taking her history and asked her whether she was married. She refused to answer him. He said: `I am sorry, but if you are not prepared to answer my questions about your history I cannot look after you'. She took him to the Human Rights Commission. That complaint is the most stupid and frivolous matter the Commission could possibly inquire into. As a result of that terribly traumatic question, which made the women come out in a rash, she sought quite substantial compensation. As I say, an inquiry has already been undertaken. The doctor was told that an application would be made in Canberra and that there would be a public inquiry. Since then a new Commissioner, by the name of McLeod, has written to the doctor. Commissioner McLeod has started a new inquiry. The doctor says that he has no intention of going through a new inquiry as an inquiry has already been undertaken. That is the sort of stupid, idiotic waste of taxpayers' money that is going on under this Commission. Senator Evans has not yet answered me. He says that we are suggesting elaborate and subtle scenarios. I can assure him that this is not elaborate or subtle. It is terribly simple. It concerns people who are going about their normal course of duty. I am sure that any medical practitioner would say that in taking a history a medical practitioner normally asks whether a person-a man or a women-is married. If people are so sensitive about being asked such an idiotic question it is obviously inspired by the stupid Bill before us. It is ridiculous that a woman can then take that doctor before the Human Rights Commission and the Commission will accept her complaint as not being of a frivolous nature. The Minister has not yet said how he would get out of appearing before the Commission if he dared ask someone he was going to employ what his political persuasion was. The Minister has said: `Yes, of course I would ask his political persuasion. It would be essential'. Let him tell me how he would get out of being brought before the Human Rights Commission if he did. It is too stupid for words. How can he overcome the provisions which are set out very clearly in his legislation that it is discriminatory to employ someone because of his political opinion? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.54) —I would be only too delighted to try to answer Senator Walters's question if I thought I ever could do so to her satisfaction. I can assure her that I would not only be doing so but also would be doing a cartwheel and singing hallelujah and a few hail Marys. The reality is that almost anything I say, however complete, full, comprehensive or detailed, simply will not satisfy Senator Walters. I repeat: I am not making any allegations or judgment in regard to this Queensland case as to whether the woman has a claim that deserves determination in her favour, as is possible under the procedures of the Sex Discrimination Act. All I am saying in answer to the earlier stages of it is that so far from there having been adverse determinations or findings against the doctor in question, it simply has not reached that stage. It has been a conciliation process. The matter has not got to the stage of anyone seeking-or certainly not granting-a determination in the woman's favour. If it ever got to that stage and the Commission did not at that stage decide that it was too trivial to be bothered with- Senator Walters —Why a second inquiry by a new commissioner? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know. I am not seeking to comment, and I do not think Senator Walters should either until she knows the circumstances of the particular case. There is a ground in our law spelling out a requirement that people not be discriminated against on the ground of marital status. There will be circumstances where a person's marital status is a highly relevant piece of information which they should provide and there can be no possible argument about it. There may well, on the other hand, particularly if a question is asked, as I gather has been alleged in this case, in a public surgery and within hearing of other people, some sensitivities involved in the context. I do not know the facts. I am not making any pronouncement upon them. There may well be circumstances such as to justify a low key, ombudsman-type inquiry of the kind that apparently has already occurred. I cannot answer any better than that except to say that to date there have been none of the draconian consequences that have been alleged in this matter. As to how I would `get out of' a Commission inquiry, to use Senator Walters's expression, if I wanted to stick to my guns and not appoint a Liberal Party or National Party member to a senior position on my staff, I would `get out of' it on the basis that I would not expect anyone rejected under those circumstances to be silly enough to make a complaint, anyway, to the Human Rights Commission. In the real world, as a practical matter, silly complaints by and large do not get lodged and do not waste people's time. It is true that there are people who are obsessed enough on occasion to lodge a silly, unmeritorious complaint which occupies a degree of time and attention in resolving it. If someone under those circumstances were to lodge a complaint I would be perfectly happy about writing an appropriate letter in response to an inquiry from the Commission as to what the circumstances of the matter were. I would be perfectly happy to participate in any subsequent process that might be set in train because I value, as I believe most members of the Australian community do, the values of non-irrational, non-arbitrary discrimination which we are trying to build into this legislation. Nobody wants draconian procedures that will work harshly, unfairly or oppressively in practice. I do not believe-genuinely-that the kind of legislation we are writing and improving tonight will have that result. On that basis I respond as I do to Senator Walters's questions. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.59) —I think the people in the outside world, the real world, deserve a better description of Senator Evan's Bill. It is stated very clearly in the Bill that one cannot discriminate against a prospective employee because of his political opinions. Senator Evans, when asked if he would employ a Liberal, said: `No, of course I would not'. He said that he would be very happy to ask someone. If the person was a member of the Liberal Party or the National Party-I do not know about the Australian Democrats-he would not employ that person. When I asked how he would get out of that problem he said: `Nobody would be silly enough to accept my legislation. In the real world out there people understand that my legislation will not work and that when I say that you must not discriminate against people for their political opinion, that is a lot of rubbish'. I agree with the Minister that people see this legislation as a lot of rubbish but there are people such as this idiot woman in Queensland who says: `No one must ask me whether I am married. I am so sensitive that I break out in a rash if they do'. As Senator Evans says, if someone is stupid enough to take him before the Human Rights Commission he will write a letter. But that is not what happens. Senator Evans ought to read his legislation again. Writing a letter will not suffice. There would be an inquiry. Senator Evans would have to appear before the Human Rights Commission at a time and date he is given. He is not allowed to write a letter. Does he think that he can get away with writing a letter because he is the Minister representing the Attorney-General and it is his legislation? Is that why he thinks that he can write a letter? The people out there will assure him that he cannot write a letter. I am quite sure that the doctor in Brisbane would assure him that he cannot write a letter but must appear before the Human Rights Commission. Because members of the public are not here they ought to be told that the Minister is wandering around trying to gag the debate because he is unable to explain how he, as Minister representing the Attorney-General and as a Minister in this Government, could get away with breaking the law and writing a letter of explanation that no doubt would satisfy the Human Rights Commission. No other person could do that but Senator Evans could because people in the real world do not take any notice of the fact that Senator Evans would put through such ridiculous legislation. The CHAIRMAN —The question is: That the amendments moved by Senator Durack, by leave, be agreed to. I will put amendments Nos (1) and (2) together if the Committee agrees. The question is: That amendments Nos (1) and (2) (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Alston, R, K. R. Aulich, T. Baume, Peter Tate, M. C. Jessop, D. S. McClelland, DouglasTownley, M. Button, J. N. Messner, A. J. Powell, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That amendment No. (3) moved by Senator Durack be agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.10) —The reason that this amendment was put forward by Senator Durack was to ensure that any definition or extension of discrimination would come back to this Parliament in the form of substantive legislation. This is a question of great importance for this chamber. Senator Gareth Evans stated that the legislation was drawn in a detailed and qualified way. Those were Senator Evans's words. But when we looked at the legislation we saw that clause 31 (2) enabled the Minister-in conjunction with the definition of discrimination-to extend the definition of discrimination merely by gazetting the extension. That is known as a Henry VIII clause. It is one which is looked at with great disdain by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Incidentally, it is one that, when it is found, is almost invariably rejected by this Parliament. Is that the detailed and qualified way in which the Minister says that the legislation is drawn? Of course, it is not. Senator Durack is attempting, by moving to delete clause 31 (2), in conjunction with the other part of his amendment, to ensure that the rights of this Parliament are paramount and that, in regard to matters of importance and of substance, the Government has the responsibility to bring those matters forward by way of substantive legislation. In so doing, the Government would then enable the Parliament to debate such legislation clause by clause. It would enable individual senators and members to put forward amendments to the legislation. It would enable a second reading debate to take place in which the principles to be considered could be addressed. It would enable a substantial Committee stage debate. During that Committee stage it would be open to any senator, not only Opposition senators, but also the Australian Democrats and independent senators-whose numbers seem to be growing at a rather rapid rate; a third one has joined us today-to participate and to move amendments. That is not the case in regard to the proposition that will soon be put forward by the Democrats. The Democrats are hand in glove with the Government over this issue. They are hand in glove with the Government in relation to this proposition, because they are attempting to deny the Parliament, in a matter of substance, the Parliament's rights and responsibilities. If that is keeping the Government honest, I do not know about it. I am sure that no other senator knows what the definition of honesty is, if that is their definition of honesty. The Senate, being the House of review, has Standing Orders and procedures which would enable the Parliament to keep the Government honest. But this will be denied to the Senate by the proposition which will be put forward by the Democrats. Their proposition, although it is an advance on what was contained in the Bill-the proposal which was sneaked through the Parliament-enables the Minister to extend the definition of discrimination, not simply by gazetting it, but to extend it by regulation. What right does this Parliament have? It merely has a right of disallowance. There would be no opportunity to make amendments. The Government can put into that regulation an extension to the definition of discrimination, 80 per cent of which I or the Senate would agree with-or 48 per cent of the Senate may agree with it-while we may not agree with the other 20 per cent of it. Many reasons could be put forward by the Government to ensure that that regulation was not disallowed and to ensure that the Government's members were kept in line. Senator Durack —The Democrats would fall for that, too. Senator HARRADINE —That is exactly and precisely what happened in regard to the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance. What should have happened there was that the matter, which was a very substantive matter, should have been brought before the Parliament by way of substantive legislation. A Bill should have been introduced into the Parliament which would have enabled amendments to be moved. How many honourable senators would have approved of such a Bill if, as is the case now, the material that was incorporated into that subordinate legislation-that ordinance-by the Government included material which was dehumanising, degrading and beyond the pale, the possession for distribution and circulation of which was outlawed in, say, a place such as Canada, which is not prudish, by decision of the court in R v. Wagner? The material, which is on the shelves, promotes incest. That is a challenge to this Parliament. That material is there. It was known to be there at the time. Yet when I tried to disallow the Ordinance, what did the Democrats say? I said: We are talking about objectionable publications that are offensive to a reasonable adult person. That is the definition given in the ordinance. How am I to protect my kids from exposure to that? Senator Mason said: A girl in a bikini. I said: Senator Mason does not understand. We are talking about objectionable publications as defined, which for the first time he is going to allow to be commercialised in the Australian Capital Territory. I sincerely acknowledge that Senator Mason did not understand what was in the material. He could not have. He would have an abhorrence of the bulk of that type of material now available. But it is an example of what we have attempted to do. We tried to disallow that regulation. I do not think that the Government even gave its members a conscience vote on that matter; I do not know. Now that the thing has been exposed it is about time that the Government used its own conscience and did something about the material that is there, about which the complaint has been made, about which I have sent a letter to every member of the Parliament. I defy any member of the Parliament to challenge a single word of what I have put in that document. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine, I have allowed considerable leniency in your explaining of the example of the use of the delegated legislation power but you must not develop this into a debate on the subject of censorship of pornography. You must confine yourself to the question of whether the thing should be done by regulation. The question before the Chair concerns Senator Durack's amendment No. 3, to leave out sub-clause 31 (2). Senator HARRADINE —That is a typical example. We have gone through the attempt to disallow the regulation. We have attempted to do it through the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. In that Committee there was a substantial minority which said that we ought to have substantive legislation on the matter. This is all in the report of the Committee. I shall not go into it. Later the Senate Select Committee on Video Material said that there should be a moratorium on the material whilst a joint select committee looked at it. The Government has not accepted the Senate Committee's recommendation on the joint select committee. All I am saying to you, Mr Chairman, and to other honourable senators is that it is most difficult for the Senate to overcome a policy decision of the Government which is incorporated into a regulation as compared with the Senate acting as a House of review when substantive legislation comes before it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.24) —We are faced with a problem now with amendment No. (3) standing in my name. That amendment was proposed by me as part of the wider and far more important amendments that I moved to confine the definition of `discrimination' to what is stated in the definition in the legislation and to eliminate altogether the power of the Minister to expand the definitions or categories of discrimination. Coupled with that and consequential upon that I was required to attempt to remove a power in clause 31 (2) which provides that the Minister may determine by notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette what any new forms of discrimination may be. That was purely consequential upon my amendments Nos 1 and 2. If No. 3 is passed without the other amendments the Minister's power to determine in the Gazette will be removed but what is left in the legislation in the definition of `discrimination'-in addition to all those categories that are set out-is any other distinction, exclusion or preference by way of discrimination which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation and which has been determined by the Minister under clause 31 (2). Of course, if 31 (2) is now removed that is meaningless. We are then left with an open-ended power of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner to decide what any discrimination that has the effect of impairing equal opportunity may be. Senator Walters —Just by regulation. Senator DURACK —Totally, not even by the Minister in the Gazette. Bad and all as that may be, at least it is done by a Minister in the Gazette. I think the only proper course is to withdraw my amendment and let the Committee carry on considering the other amendments. The CHAIRMAN —I think that is entirely proper. There were two identical amendments. One was foreshadowed by the Australian Democrats and one was moved by you, Senator Durack. As you had moved it I was obliged to put it. It would be easier if it were withdrawn. Amendment-by leave-withdrawn. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.27) —I move: Page 4, clause 3, lines 10 and 11, leave out ``but does not include any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job;'', insert ``but does not include any distinction, exclusion or preference: (c) in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job; or (d) in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, being a distinction, exclusion or preference made in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or that creed;''. I have explained previously the purport of the amendment. It is essentially to recognise, without acknowledging the necessity of, the concern the Australian Episcopal Conference in respect of educational, hospital and welfare institutions. The Government's amendment simply attempts to resolve a possible doubt as to the operation of the test in the relevant article of the International Labour Organisation Convention in respect of the inherent requirements of a particular job. As I have said, the Government doubts the need for any additional clarification at this point in this context but it is prepared to clarify the matter further in respect of religious institutions because of the concern that has been expressed. I repeat that we believe-I have said this before in the debate-that such an exemption should be left relatively narrow so we do not start significantly derogating from the terms of the Convention. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.28) —Can the Minister explain to me where in the Convention there is an exclusion similar to that so that he will not be departing from the Convention? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.28) —I have explained previously that this is really just an elaboration of the concept of inherent requirements of the job which we have previously debated, which appears in Article 1-- Senator Walters —You know that is a lot of rubbish. Senator GARETH EVANS —We do not concede that it is a lot of rubbish but, since the bishops conference has taken the view that it really would prefer not to have religious schools, hospitals and welfare institutions subjected to any conceivable uncertainty at all about what the inherent requirements in terms of religious belief and commitment are for the occupancy of jobs in those institutions, we have indicated a willingness to accommodate those views. It is a gloss upon the language of Article 1.2, which says: Any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements thereof shall not be deemed to be discrimination. If Senator Walters does not like us attempting to be conciliatory to accommodate a concern, I suppose we will go back in our shell. Given the way in which Senator Harradine and others were pressing the concern of the bishops and since we did not want to generate any unnecessary uncertainty, we have reacted accordingly. I hope we will have some gracious acknowledgment of that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.29) —There is no gracious acknowledgment at all. I am delighted that the Minister is departing from the Convention. Do not let him kid himself that he is not departing from the Convention, that is all. Of course he is departing from the Convention. I congratulate him for departing from the Convention. But he has departed from conventions on so many things when it suits him to depart from a convention. Then he piously says that he cannot include things that we want him to because if he does, he will be departing from the Convention. That, of course, is just a lot of rubbish. That is the sort of argument that only this Minister would indulge in. The Minister has not been able to show me where that particular exclusion is in the Convention. I go even further: Does that apply to individuals? As I read it, it does not; it applies only to institutions. It does not apply to individuals who have very strong feelings about the church to which they belong or the tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed. I think it has to be made very clear to the Australian people that while there are exemptions for particular institutions, exemptions do not apply to the individuals belonging to those religious institutions, beliefs or teachings. This is the great flaw in the whole of the Minister's Bill. It is a direct interference with the religious freedoms of this country. Amendment agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.31) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``discrimination'', leave out sub-paragraph (b) (ii), insert the following sub-paragraph: ``(ii) has been declared by the regulations to constitute discrimination for the purposes of this Act,''. (3) Page 24, leave out sub-clause 31 (2). Essentially these items refer to a question which has already been canvassed fairly widely in debate, and that concerns the question of delegated legislation. Some fairly wild and extraordinary statements have been made and I have no intention of responding to those except to say that this morning there was a vote in which we sought precisely to get rid of a series of regulations in respect of the Australian Capital Territory. That was defeated by the Opposition parties voting with the Government. In fact, every time that such a regulation is sought to be disallowed and is defeated, it is done so by a majority of this chamber. It is a failing, if one likes, of the democratic process that the majority finally makes the decision. I find it very difficult to understand why, by latching on to one particular item where one may fail to have been on the winning side-I can remember quite a number in recent days-that one would then move against the motion of seeking to regulate delegated legislation in this manner. We considered the Opposition's amendment which sought to use another track. We considered this particular method and it seemed to us, in terms of the various points that were raised, that this particular method was adequate to the task that was involved in the Human Rights Commission. I think we are all very much aware that the essential difference, in terms of votes, is one. To be able to get a Bill through this chamber there has to be a majority of the chamber. To be able to get a disallowance of regulation through the chamber, there has to be a majority of the chamber as well. So the difference essentially is one vote, if the same topic is both in a Bill and in a regulation. I am willing to admit that on certain occasions a vote of one is certainly a determining factor. It was yesterday and I imagine it will be on other occasions. A very interesting report, which has the support of my Party, was delivered to this chamber some years ago now with regard to delegated legislation. We have expressed the opinion on a number of occasions that it is a pity that the chamber has never seen fit to pursue the re- commendations of that committee that looked at delegated legislation. The report was brought down under the Fraser Government and no progress was made. No progress has been made under the Hawke Labor Government. Nevertheless, the Australian Democrats support the re- commendations of that committee, which essentially sought a positive vote with regard to regulations rather than the negative vote which is implied in the manner in which we have dealt with them up till now. That is what we are doing; that is the area in which the activity can take place. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is essentially a relatively weak instrument in respect of the promotion of human rights, and fairly obviously the Commission, in terms of the human rights section, that the current Commission does not have. Of course, the equal opportunity part, particularly with regard to sex discrimination, is a new item under such a commission. When one looks at the powers set out in the Bill one realises that most of those are taken from the current Bill, under which the current Human Rights Commission operates. I think that essentially we will see much the same type of activity in the future. I think it is well to remember that this Commission was meant to be part of an overall package. It has now been plucked out with substantive amendments and essentially, on its own, it is a very weak instrument in the promotion of human rights in this country. The only other thing I want to say with regard to this matter of delegated legislation and the Human Rights Commission is that I think it is a pity, in terms of the general community debate, that the debate has been conducted at the level at which it has been conducted. There are a great deal of concerns within the community about the denial of human rights. I think that it is important that governments respond to these concerns. There can be debate, as there has been, on whether or not this is the most appropriate method for dealing with that, but in general I think this is the method by which it should take place. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.37) —I simply indicate for the record that the Government supports Senator Macklin's amendments for the reasons that have been fully explained in the earlier course of this debate. Amendments agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.38) —In respect of the second amendment which has been circulated by the Australian Democrats, I move: (2) Page 10, paragraph 11(1)(k), at the beginning of the paragraph, insert: ``on its own initiative or''. This amendment refers to a different topic-to the powers of the Commission. I refer honour- able senators basically to page 10 of the old Bill before it was amended extensively where under paragraph 11(1)(j) one finds `on its own initiative or when requested by a Minister', under (k)`when requested by the Minister' and under (m) `on its own initiative or when requested by the Minister'. Depending upon how one interprets those various powers-I must admit that they have been interpreted variously under the powers granted to the current Commission-it would seem to be more appropriate that under (k) there should be `on its own initiative or' placed in front of `when requested by the Minister'. I do not think it is any secret that I have been very interested in the Human Rights Commission looking at the particular subject of electoral laws around Australia. I remind the chamber of a document that has been previously read in the chamber, which is a letter to the then Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Don Chipp, on 12 March this year from the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, in which amongst other things he said: I am pleased to repeat the Attorney's commitment of that day. Specifically I confirm that the Government will ask the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to inquire into existing State electoral laws. Should the Commission find that Queensland's electoral distribution contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and should the Queensland Government not agree to reform that distribution, the Commonwealth will legislate pursuant to its external affairs power. That is a significant proposition with regard to the operation of the Commission. I seek from the Minister reiteration that it is the continuing intention of the Government to so do. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.41) —I indicate the Government's support for the Australian Democrats' amendment which would enable the Human Rights Commission to report on the action that needs to be taken by Australia to comply with relevant international instruments without having to await a request to do so from the Minister. Any Executive government has a slight sense of trepidation in allowing any agency to embark upon investigations of this kind on its own initiative. However, such is our confidence in the Human Rights Commission, as newly constituted, behaving sensibly, rationally and responsibly that we are prepared to accept the Democrats' amendment which brings this clause very much more in line with the language and content of the rest of clause 11 than would be the case if this amendment were not carried. As to the Queensland electoral laws possibly being an appropriate task for the Human Rights Commission, I do not want to open up that subject tonight. I simply say that it remains the Government's intention to make an early reference to the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in relation to electoral laws. Such a reference would ask whether the relevant laws are inconsistent with the guarantee of universal and equal suffrage which is the language of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Obviously, as I have said on many occasions, this question can by no means be assumed to be the case. Much depends on what the language of the Covenant actually means in this context. I am not able to say. I hope there is not any change in the remaining part of the Government's position as it was earlier articulated by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.43) —I would like to pursue this matter with Senator Evans. I was going to pursue it anyway but as it has arisen now in relation to one of the amendments I think it may be appropriate to raise it now. In the letter the Prime Minister wrote to the former Leader of the Australian Democrats, Don Chipp, on 12 March 1986, he made a very specific commitment to the Democrats-presumably it was on behalf of the Government-stating the Government's policy. The relevant section of that letter stated: Specifically I confirm that the Government will ask the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to inquire into existing State electoral laws- not just Queensland- . . . Should the Commission find that Queensland's electoral distribution contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and should the Queensland Government not agree to reform that distribution, the Commonwealth will legislate pursuant to its external affairs power. The letter then referred to what the Attorney-General stated and continued: You should be aware that that commitment by the Government has also been confirmed by the Attorney-General in a letter to all State Attorneys sent on 4 March this year. I refer Senator Evans to the substance of this commitment which firstly seems to be a reference by the Government to the Human Rights Commission in relation to all State electoral laws, not just Queensland's electoral laws. Is that the commitment? Does it still stand? Secondly, if the Commission finds that the Queensland electoral distribution contravenes the international Covenant will this finding be confined to Queensland? What about Western Australia? What about any other State law? Does this commitment apply to any State law that is found to conflict with the Covenant? Thirdly, presumably the State Government concerned will be given the first option to bring its laws into conformity with whatever is the Human Rights Commission's interpretation of this Covenant. Fourthly, if it does not, the Commonwealth will then legislate pursuant to its external power to override the wishes of the State. That seems to be about four specific commitments that the Prime Minister has made. I would like to know whether they all still stand as firmly as they were stated to stand in the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to Don Chipp on 12 March. I was not very impressed, frankly, by Senator Evans's answer to Senator Macklin. Senator Macklin may be more impressed with its firmness. One reason which would lead me to believe that that is not the Government's view today is that a day or two after the Queensland election on 1 November last, which is a good deal more recent than 12 March last, the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, whose statements in fact are really being relied on by the Prime Minister in this letter, is reported as having said that the Queensland electoral system is a matter that should be left to Queensland and decided within Queensland. Did Mr Bowen say that? If he did say that, is he now being over- riden by a reaffirmation from Senator Evans, who only represents Mr Bowen in this place? It has not come from the Prime Minister. Is Senator Evans here overriding what Mr Bowen has said in the last few days? I would like to be assured on just what the position is. I would also like to know whether these commitments by this Government, by Senator Evans on behalf of the Government, repudiate the very firm statements made by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, in relation to Western Australian electoral laws that as far as he is concerned these matters are to be decided in Western Australia alone and not by the Federal Government. I put those six questions to Senator Evans-or to the back of Senator Evans, who is more interested in chatting to somebody else than in dealing with these matters. Perhaps he will be able to answer them. If he cannot answer them now, I think we should hold up the final resolution of this matter until he does. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.49) —I do not think we need to do anything as dramatic as hold it up. I am happy to answer the questions as best I can. The situation is, in broad terms, that the Government's position on this issue is the same as was outlined earlier in the year. But some circumstances have changed. Instead of having a guarantee of universal and equal suffrage enshrined in a legislative Australian Bill of Rights which, in turn, picks up the entire International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we will have simply a provision for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to investigate possible breaches of the terms of the Covenant itself. That may, at the end of the day, have significant constitutional implications for the Commonwealth Government's capacity to legislate for the implementation of that particular provision of the Covenant. It may be that the Commonwealth's legislative position, constitutionally speaking, is very much weaker in a one-off exercise than would be the case if one were implementing or enforcing, if you like, one particular section of a Bill of Rights. That is a matter for legal discussion and argument, and something, of course, on which I am not seeking to pronounce at this stage. The further change that has occurred is that under the terms of the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, as now to be amended by the Australian Democrats, the Commission will have a capacity to initiate reports and investigations of this kind itself rather than having to depend upon a formal reference from the government of the day. So that opens another option which was not there in the original formulation. However, my current understanding of the situation-I make this statement ad referendum to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in case he wants to add anything different-is that the Government will proceed as earlier promised with a reference to the Commission on the subject I would think of electoral laws generally, rather than just the case in Queensland, to report upon whether one vote one value considerations are in fact guaranteed by the universal and equal suffrage provisions of the International Covenant. When the Commission's report on that matter is received by the Government it may well suggest a firm legislative response is appropriate. It may be, on the other hand, after a full examination of the terms of the Covenant and the meaning of the expression `equal suffrage', given the uncertainties that apply as to whether that means, as I have often said in this place, one vote one value or simply one person one vote, that the report of the Commission will come back in a way which suggest that such-- Senator Durack —You are getting more shonky every minute. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am simply not prepared to commit the Government at this stage. On that basis I have answered the question as fully and honestly as I can. I am not seeking to dissimulate in any way. I am not seeking to hide the difficulties that lie in the path of getting fair electorate laws in this country. I do not want to open up the substantive debate about that. We are simply talking about the procedures, the powers, the functions, the jurisdiction and so on of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I will seek some further information from the Attorney as to what he sees now the full sequence of events being. But my understanding is as they have been described. To the extent that some of that sounds perhaps not quite as explicit as was the case earlier in the year, that is directly attributable to the fact that we will not now have for the endlessly foreseeable future an Australian Bill of Rights. We will simply have to make do with the much less satisfactory machinery of the kind that we now have. We will pursue these issues of democratic freedom and the values that some of us at least hold dear with as much vigour and enthusiasm as we can. But it is not easy to be confident about the outcome of these exercises as might otherwise previously have been the case. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.53) —It is perfectly clear now that the Government is going to run away from the commitment of Prime Minister Hawke of 12 March. From the answer that we have just heard, it is quite clear that the Government does not now need to be buying the lousy little votes of the Australian Democrats as it was on 12 March. It gave this commitment in circumstances in which it desperately sought to get the support of the Democrats for the Bill of Rights. Of course, now that it has abandoned the Bill of Rights it is not particularly interested in this question. It does not have to pay this price. It is now cheaper for the Government than it was earlier in the year. In the years that I have been here I have never heard such a miserable retreat by any Minister in this chamber. This is not a question of what the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) thinks. With all respect to the Attorney-General, it is very difficult to understand what he thinks from week to week. The background to the letter from the Prime Minister was that both the Attorney-General and Senator Evans as the Minister representing the Attorney- General put their position in the Parliament but the Australian Democrats, very wisely after what we have just heard, were not prepared to accept the statements by the Attorney-General and Senator Evans about what would happen. Don Chipp wanted a cast iron guarantee from the Prime Minister. How wise the Democrats were. It is no good Senator Gareth Evans saying that this is his current understanding of the situation and that he will have it confirmed, or maybe denied or maybe qualified, by the Attorney-General. When are we to be told that? Senator Walters —I hope you heard him say that it is quite possible that it would be denied. Senator DURACK —Of course it would be denied. Mr Bowen denied it the other day. He said that it was for Queensland to decide. It is obvious that the only way to solve this problem is for Senator Gareth Evans to tell us, on behalf of the Prime Minister, or for the Prime Minister to tell us on his own account, that the commitment of 12 March stands or does not stand. That is really all we need to know. I think we ought to be told before we proceed any further in this Committee just what is the position of the Government. I would like to make one or two comments on Senator Gareth Evans's statement. He says that the situation has changed since 12 March. Senator Giles —Well, well! Senator DURACK —It has; he said it. Did the honourable senator not hear him? He said that the situation has changed since the Prime Minister-- Senator Giles —How can you deny that it has changed? Senator DURACK —Senator Evans said it; I did not. It has changed because the Australian Bill of Rights Bill has not been passed. The Bill of Rights had not been passed on 12 March either. The position is that the power of the Parliament to pass the Bill of Rights depends upon the provisions of the Covenant. The fact that the Bill of Rights has not been passed does not affect the external affairs power. That depends upon the Covenant. The Covenant is still there, ratified as it was some time ago. Whatever constitutional power there is to carry out this exercise, the Government has that power. The only change in the circumstances is that the Government does not now want to buy the Australian Democrats' votes for the Bill of Rights because it has abandoned it. That is the only thing that has changed-the Government does not now need to buy the Democrats' votes. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General do not need to reaffirm that, and they are trying to skrimshank out of it, as clearly Senator Gareth Evans has been doing tonight. Another interesting factor might have influenced the Government, and this may be a new factor which was not known to any of us when the matter was being debated in the Senate in March this year. At the Senate Estimates committee hearings in April this year, following the debate we had here, Senator Walters and I asked some questions of the representatives of the Human Rights Commission. They revealed some interesting information-in particular, that the existing Human Rights Commission had been asked to give an interpretation of the provisions of article 25 of the International Covenant, the one about equal suffrage. Mr Thomson, the Secretary to the Commission, wrote a letter to Senator McIntosh dated 11 April 1986 and enclosed a series of documents revealing the results of investigations by the Human Rights Commission in relation to a matter which had been raised with the Commission by the Proportional Representation Society of Australia which asked to have investigated whether the method of electing members to the House of Representatives is inconsistent with article 25 of the International Covenant. The reply to Mr Wright, the President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia, from Mr Thomson was dated 1 September 1986. In that reply Mr Thomson, on behalf of the Human Rights Commission, said that the Commission had examined the working papers of the international committees that worked on the Covenant to try to find the exact intention of the specific words and phrases. He went on to say that from the records it seemed clear that the intention of the United Nations General Assembly was that the final form of the Article should make allowance for different electoral systems in various parts of the world and that the choice of electoral systems should be left to individual governments. Further he refers to views that were expressed in what are called the working papers of the preparatory committee's working on the Covenant, and so on. The British delegation informed the 1,096th meeting of the third committee at which these matters were discussed that it would no longer maintain its amendment if it were made clear that the word `equal' did not imply that each vote would be guaranteed identical weight by means of some kind of proportional representation electoral system, and that each vote carried equal weight in the sense that there was only one vote per person and it was cast from a member who had exactly the same rights and duties as any other member. The general tenor of this reply from the Human Rights Commission was to reject the claim that the guarantee in the Covenant of universal and equal suffrage does not mandate some proportional representation system by force of that reasoning and certainly does not mandate any one vote, one value system. It seems that the most it can guarantee is one person, one vote, although it really does not mandate any particular electoral system. It leaves that for final determination by the States concerned. It is on the basis of that very limited definition of equal suffrage that the Government apparently was going to refer this to the new Human Rights Commission. It may well be that the Government has now decided that, on the basis of findings already made by the existing Human Rights Commission, there really is no substance in the argument that the international Covenant, and by force of that, the Bill of Rights which sought to guarantee equal suffrage, guarantees one vote, one value. It is even doubtful whether it guarantees one person, one vote, because the electoral systems essentially are left to the determination of the States concerned. The major textbook on the international covenant, titled the `International Bill of Rights', edited by a prominent international lawyer called Louis Henkin and which is contributed to by a number of international lawyers, also discusses this matter, and on page 240 the same conclusion is expressed. For good measure, after we last debated this matter the question was also the subject of views expressed by a quite prominent Australian constitutional lawyer, Professor Winterton, who on the AM program in April this year also expressed considerable doubts as to whether the Covenant could be used to mandate or require assistance for one vote, one value. The upshot is that the letter that the Democrats got from the Prime Minister is of doubtful value or significance and was probably due to the fact that the Government has learnt a little more about what the Covenant means and the value it can be put to. It has probably had some legal opinions in addition to these, which it will not let us have, which have convinced the Government that the likelihood of even the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission which will be set up by the Government, coming to any other decision than the existing Human Rights Commission on what the Covenant means is most unlikely. Frankly, I am not surprised that Senator Evans is trying to back away from the commitment that his Prime Minister gave in such unequivocal terms to Don Chipp, the former leader of the Democrats, in the letter that has been referred to. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.07) —As I understood Senator Evans's reply to Senator Durack's first series of questions, he overlooked answering the question whether in the event that there was no inhibiting legislative barrier, the Human Rights Commission would be inquiring into the electoral methods and systems not only in Queensland but also in all other States. One can look at Western Australia. It seems to me that there is an obsession with the Queensland electoral system, notwithstanding the fact that it is based on the premise of the Labor Party's original electoral legislation. The obsession with Queensland seems to be that it has a conservative government. We hear little about Western Australia at the moment because it has a socialist government temporarily on the government benches. Let me put a proposition to the Committee. In the Western Australian seat of Murchison-Eyre there are 3,000 voters. In the seat of Karrinyup, a metropolitan area, there are more than 20,000 voters. That is a tolerance of 7:1. I ask whether the electoral system in Queensland has more tolerance. There is an electoral system in Western Australia where in the north-west the Government is arbitrarily, through legislation, able to draw the lines irrespective of the numbers. Why does the Labor Party not have an obsession with the Western Australian electoral system in the same way as it has a preoccupation with the system in Queensland? One can only assume that there has been a temporary aberration because the Labor Party happens for the moment to be in power in Western Australia. I understood Senator Evans to be saying something slightly different to Senator Durack's interpretation. I understood him to be saying that provided there was no inhibiting legislative barrier, the term of reference would be given to this obscure Human Rights Commission. If it found that universal suffrage meant one vote one value, the Government would legislate accordingly, provided that there was no constitutional or legislative process to inhibit that course of action. That leads me to pose the question: If we are looking at Western Australia and at Queensland, why do we not look at the total electoral process in Australia generally? Why do we not look at Tasmania which, because it is enshrined in the Constitution, has five seats in the House of Representatives? Is that equal weighting of votes? Senator Boswell —What about the Senate? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I will come to that in a moment. At the moment I am just talking about the House of Representatives. Let us look at the weighting in favour of Tasmania as distinct from the disadvantage suffered by New South Wales. Will the Human Rights Commission look into that? As my colleagues have pointed out, what about the Senate? Let us look at the weighted advantage that the Tasmanian people have over the people of New South Wales, that the people of Western Australia have over the people of New South Wales, that the people of Queensland have over the people of New South Wales and that the people of Victoria have over the people of New South Wales. Will we restructure our system so that we abolish the Senate, as we understand it, as a States House with equal representation, equal voice, equal weighting and equal voting? Senator Walters —You have left out the Australian Capital Territory. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —What about the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory? We might refer this back to the High Court of Australia. Maybe it will come down with a different decision next time and say they are not entitled to senators. Senator Reid —Do you want to get rid of me? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No. We would find a spot for Senator Reid somewhere else. I put to honourable senators that, if the Government is serious and genuine in its commitment to what it sees as electoral reform, it ought quite properly to have the term of reference cover the electoral system right throughout Australia, at Federal and State levels. Presumably, it would then look at local government. But that is not what happens. We see a preoccupation and obsession with Queensland. The other question I ask of Senator Evans is: Why is it necessary to refer this term of reference to the Human Rights Commission? Is the Government not competent, capable or able to make a judgment itself on whether it has the constitutional power to override the States and so to rearrange the composition, the construction and the character of the Senate and the House of Representatives? Why does it need the Human Rights Commission? I presume it needs it as a Trojan horse. It does not have the courage to make the commitment, so it sets up this de facto government on the side, this unelected group of people with a clearly determined and preconceived notion of what is right and what is wrong in the electoral system, whose job is to refer back to the Government a determination, for implementation by the Government on the basis that the Government feels compelled to fulfil the decision cast upon it by the Human Rights Commission. It seems to me that the Government is simply opting out. It is not genuine; it is an absolute fake; it is a Claytons decision. Clearly, the Government does not have the courage and quite properly it is not its responsibility. I find it fascinating that this Government is prepared to set up a commission with powers to determine whether a State government's decisions in respect of electoral legislation are proper or not. An unelected group of people will be appointed by the Government. That group, with preconceived political notions, will virtually hand to this Government the framework for legislation that will override every single elected government in this country, whether State, Federal or local government. That is the epitome of the reasons why I disagree with the construction of the Human Rights Commission and the terms of reference and powers intended to be given unto it by this Government. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.14) —I want to refer to the matters raised by Senator Durack and to ask a number of specific questions of the Minister. By answering those questions, this matter can be cleared up. We have evidence before us from the Human Rights Commission relating specifically to the powers and lack of powers of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That evidence is quite specific. It shows that on investigation of the working discussions, the travaux of that Covenant prior to its actual signing, it became clear that there would not be significant signatories to the Covenant if the principle of one vote one value were included. Indeed, countries such as the United Kingdom said they would not be signatories to the Covenant if it included one vote, one value, Either the evidence before us from the Human Rights Commission is right or wrong. It can be found within hours to be right or wrong. Either the Covenant was built on the specific understanding that it would not include one vote, one value or the evidence given to us by the Human Rights Commission is wrong. That fact can be secured quite easily. I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to tell us the fact. Is it true that, in the formulation of this Covenant, a series of debates took place on the method of voting and that the concept of one vote, one value was put aside because the Covenant could not be achieved and the signatories gained if it were incorporated? The only principle that was incorporated was one person, one vote. Indeed, the Human Rights Commission has told us in evidence that the right of different countries to have different electoral systems was recognised by the Covenant. That is either right or wrong. It ill becomes the Minister to come here tonight and to tell us that perhaps there might be a power in the Covenant and perhaps there might not, that perhaps we could refer the matter to the Commission, when he must know that the evidence given by the Human Rights Commission to the Senate is that, in its view, the Commission has no such power at all. The Minister must know that, in constitutional law, there is ample documentary evidence in text books on this particular Covenant that that right does not exist. I rise simply to ask the Minister what the fact is. Before we settle this matter, let us have the facts. Is it true or is it not that in the travaux, the working papers, there is a specific denial, a setting aside, of one vote, one value? Is the evidence before us from the Human Rights Commission factual or not? We are entitled to know this. Senator Crichton-Browne —Senator Evans knows already. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Of course he must know already. After all, this information was sought in Estimates Committee E, of which the Minister is the substantive Minister at the table. He should know the evidence that comes before us on this. In any case, he could find it out by making a simple telephone call. The papers are available. The evidence given to us by the Human Rights Commission is that there is no power under the international Covenant to uphold the principle of one vote, one value. In fact, in the signing of the Covenant that was specifically put aside because the signatories would not agree to sign it if it enshrined the principle of one vote, one value. But the signatories, in signing the Covenant, admitted that different countries could have different electoral systems. The Minister knows that, the Government knows that and the Human Rights Commission knows that. Yet the Minister has come here tonight trying to use every kind of euphemism and ambiguity in order deliberately to mislead the Senate. He has suggested that perhaps the matter could go before the Commission so it could test the powers. Within the Attorney- General's Department and within the law libraries of this Government there lies factual evidence. The only question to be answered is this: Has the Human Rights Commission informed the Senate correctly on this matter in saying that there was an explicit exclusion of that principle or has it not? I ask the Minister explicitly to tell us whether the advice given to us by the Human Rights Commission is accurate. Was there an exclusion in the travaux, in the working discussions and working papers? Is it a fact that the signatories would not agree to sign if one vote, one value was included? The Minister must know that. If he does not know he can find out with one telephone call. The evidence was given in writing to the Senate by the Human Rights Commission, the very body which he now says he will refer this issue to, a commission which has said that it has no powers to consider the issue. What kind of mumbo-jumbo is it when a Minister gets up, knowing-because he must know-that according to the Commission the power does not lie with it, yet saying to us that it is going to make that reference? I ask the specific question: Was the Human Rights Commission's advice to the Senate correct? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.21) —The further we go the more obvious it is that the Australian Democrats have been taken for a ride again. A deal was done. As Senator Evans has said, the Government will do a deal to buy the Democrats' vote. The deal was that a letter would be written by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a letter set in stone. The Prime Minister's word was not good enough for the Democrats and the Democrats demanded it to be set in stone. So the Prime Minister wrote to the Democrats assuring them that he would move to have the Commission inquire into the electoral laws of Queensland. He knew at that time, as the Commission knew, that the Commission had no power to do so. The Democrats in their naivete were fully taken in. They assured the Prime Minister and Senator Evans that they would vote for the Australian Bill of Rights and for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill so long as the Prime Minister fixed what they saw as a problem for them in Queensland. It is a disgrace. The deals done between the Australian Labor Party and the Democrats are going to have to come to an end. Perhaps the result of this matter will be that the Democrats will wake up that every time they do a deal with the Labor Party they are taken for for a ride. I remember only too well Senator Haines coming into the chamber and saying: `Look at the deal I have done with the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett. He is allowing funds to put a stamp on a letter to send someone's medical claim to Medicare. What a deal I have done'. Suddenly she found out that she had been had. Anyone could have put a stamp on the letter. We now have another deal involving a letter set in stone written by the Prime Minister. The inquiry cannot be carried out. The Commission is well aware that it cannot be carried out. Senator Evans is also aware that it cannot be carried out. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.23) —I am perfectly happy to try to answer Senator Sir John Carrick's question. I am aware of some, at least, of the travaux preparatoires. I think I recall the communication from the Commission to which Senator Sir John Carrick refers. It may well be the case that a number of countries were not keen on signing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, except on the basis that Senator Sir John Carrick referred to. That does not necessarily conclude the matters as to what the proper interpretation of these clauses is. It is a relevant consideration, obviously, in interpreting them but it is a matter for investigation and careful legal analysis as to what the relevant international law is. That analysis has not been carried out in the form of a full scale reference to and report by the Commission. It is an analysis which would appear highly desirable in the Australian context, given the continuing controversy about electoral boundaries, laws and principles and the way in which they are protected or not, as the case may be-not only in Queensland as Senator Crichton-Browne points out, but elsewhere. I believe that these issues have been amply canvassed by now in this debate. There seems to be remarkably little interest in further pursuing any detailed discussion of clause 11 (1) (k) and the particular amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. Accordingly it is quite proper that I move, as I now do: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Knowles, S. C. Bolkus, N. Hill, R. Aulich, T. Alston, R. K. R. Button, J. N. Baume, PeterTate, M. C. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretMcClelland, Douglas MacGibbon, D. J. Powell, J. F. Townley, M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —It being after 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! The question now is: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.32) —On Sunday I put out a Press release dealing with errors and misleading statements in the annual report of the Department of Territories for 1985-86. I have since had it drawn to my attention that some media reports took comments slightly out of context or created further confusion by shortening the copy. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of the Press release so that these misunderstandings can be cleared up. Leave granted. The document read as follows- DEPARTMENT MISLEADS ON LEGISLATION YET AGAIN ``They've really spoilt a lot of hard and diligent work that has gone into the latest annual report by making serious errors in relation to the self-government legislation,'' said Senator David Vigor, Australian Democrat spokesman on A.C.T. matters. Senator Vigor was commenting on the Annual Report of the Department of Territories for 1985-86, which is expected to be tabled in the Senate this week. The Department claims that the mixed electoral system proposed by the government of ten single-member districts and proportional representation for nine places at large in the A.C.T. is similar to that successfully operating in West Germany. ``This fallacious claim has been given wide currency in A.L.P. circles and has spread to those in close contact with the A.L.P. It is about as accurate as the Department's leaked electoral calculations earlier this year which had an analysis of the non-existent House of Assembly elections of 1984?'' ``The differences between the A.C.T. proposals and what happens in West Germany are so fundamental as to frighten any government that wants its local members to rule on 40% of the vote.'' Senator Vigor pointed out that the Hare-Clark procedure proposed by the Australian Democrats would ensure that there were no safe seats and that each candidate, no matter from what party, could only get elected if she or he had strong community support. ``The Hare-Clark system produces the fairest results for voters, parties and candidates. The West German system produces fairness for parties but does not give voters a say in which of their candidates get elected. What the government is proposing does not even produce fairness for parties.'' ``What is proposed for the A.C.T. by the government treats the proportional representation and single-member parts quite separately. This is so that the A.L.P. will be able to retain government on 40% of the vote. And yet that is one of its objections to the outrageous zonal system in Queensland which was introduced under the Hanlon Labor Government.'' ``In West Germany, the membership of the Bundestag from each Land (State of the Federation) is determined by the overall vote for each party in that Land, even though half the seats are decided on a single-member basis. They consciously remove the unfairness that always occurs with single-member electorates.'' ``In other words, the West Germans use half the seats to correct the distortions created by single-member electorates. The seats for each party which gets more than 5% of the vote are determined by the d'Hondt method of highest averages, a form of proportional representation inferior to our quota-preferential methods.'' ``The difference between this entitlement and the number of single-member districts won is worked out and that many people from the top of the party's list become members of parliament also. Sometimes extra seats have to be created because the results in the single-member seats are so unfair that one party has already got more seats than those to which it is entitled. Voters get no say at all in which candidates from each party will be elected.'' The Department also claims that the A.C.T. Council Bill was opposed by the Opposition parties and the Australian Democrats. ``Along with virtually every Canberran, the Australian Democrats certainly did not support a lot of the out- rageous provisions in the Bill which would have left very little say to the people of the A.C.T. and afforded them no protection at all financially. However, we said that we would vote for the Second Reading, and seek amendments to achieve effective self-government.'' ``For instance, we condemned the proposals that the Attorney-General vet each law and give it the all-clear and that the Council could be dismissed at the whim of the Commonwealth. These were among the matters included in the nine pages of amendments that the government eventually circulated.'' In the annual report, the Department points out that at 30 June 1986, the A.C.T. Council Bill had not passed the Senate. ``What is not mentioned is that no time was made available for debate by the government. In fact, because the House of Representatives rose before the Senate, it was not possible for amended legislation to get through in the autumn session. That's why the Democrats suggested holding another election for the House of Assembly and indicated our support for a gradual handover of powers to that body.'' Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —by leave-On behalf of Senator Tate I present the nineteenth report of 1986 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the ABC-SBS Amalgamation Bill 1986; the Bounty (Ship Repair) Bill 1986; the Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1986; the Navigation Amendment Bill 1986; the Pig Industry Bill 1986; the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Bill 1986; the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1986; the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986; the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill 1986; and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 19, dated 26 November 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.34 p.m. The following papers were tabled: National Health Act-Determinations (4) made by the Minister under sub-section 4 (1), dated 27 October 1986 and 28 October 1986.