Tuesday, 17 March 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 13 March 1987 of the Hon. Hugh Stevenson Roberton. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 13 March 1987, of the Hon. Hugh Stevenson Roberton, a member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Riverina from 1949 to 1965, and a former Minister of the Crown from 1956 to 1965, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family in their bereavement. A foundation member of the Country Party, Hugh Stevenson Roberton was elected in 1949 to the House of Representatives, holding the New South Wales seat of Riverina. He held that seat during 16 years of continuous and distinguished service to the Parliament. He was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs from 1952 to 1955, and was a member of the delegation representing the Commonwealth Parliament at the first meeting of the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory in its new Council Chamber on 25 March 1955. Hugh Roberton held the portfolio of Minister for Social Services from February 1956 to January 1965, when he resigned from the Parliament to take up an appointment as Ambassador to Ireland, a position he held until 1968. Before entering Parliament, Hugh Roberton was a farmer and grazier. He wrote on political, economic and general subjects under his own name and also under the nom de plume of Peter Snodgrass. He was the author of The Roberton Wheat Stabilization Scheme and a work entitled Now Blame the Farmer. He was also the General President of the Australian Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. During World War II he served with the 3rd Anti-Tank Regiment, 9th Australian Division in the Middle East and was discharged in Australia in December 1944. Hugh Stevenson Roberton was a long-standing and well respected member of the House of Representatives who made significant contributions to his Party, the Parliament and his country. On behalf of the Government I extend to his wife Eileen and his daughter Janet our sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I rise to support the motion moved by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, expressing our sorrow at the death of the Hon. Hugh Stevenson Roberton. Mr Roberton served as a Minister from 1956 to 1965 and he is one of the members of parliament I remember from visits I used to make to the Parliament as a schoolboy and as a student. Senator Button —That explains a lot. Senator CHANEY —I particularly recall his courtesy. In light of the minor interjection from the Leader of the Government in the Senate I can only say that that quality is worth remembering because the sorts of courtesies that Mr Roberton showed are not conspicuous in either chamber in the current era. I do recall him for his courtesy and I also recall that his memories of Parliament must have been better than the memories some past members have because he used to visit the Parliament from time to time, usually in response to invitations from his old Party, renamed the National Party of Australia. He and his now widow attended some of those functions and I can remember talking with them. On behalf of the Opposition I express our very great sympathy to his widow. Mr Roberton had a long and distinguished career. He served his country well in war and in peace in this Parliament and out of this Parliament. I believe that he was a particularly fine representative not just of his Party but indeed of the Australian people, and I am very sad at his passing. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I would like also to join in the condolence motion on behalf of the members of the National Party of Australia in the Senate. It has been indicated that Hugh Roberton led a very full life and that most of that life was taken up in service to the community or to the nation in various ways. He was a Coolamon Shire councillor in 1930. He was a foundation member of the New South Wales Country Party, as Senator Gareth Evans has indicated, and a member of the Central Council. He was a member of the executive of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales and its General President from 1945 to 1949. He was President of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation from 1946 and Chairman of the Wheat Industry Defence Council. He was a member of the Council of Primary Producers Association of Australia and, of course, as has been indicated, he also saw service in the Australian Imperial Force as a gunner in the anti-tank regiment. He was the member for Riverina from 1949 to 1965 and was also the Minister for Social Services in the Government from 1956 to 1965. He then capped that long and illustrious career of service to the community and the public by joining the diplomatic service and becoming our first ambassador to Ireland. As Senator Chaney has indicated, in recent years he lived in Canberra and took the opportunities that were available to him to come back to this place, to maintain his interest in it and to renew old friendships. His failing eyesight meant that his wife Eileen had an increased burden in looking after him, but she inevitably came with him and was a wonderful companion to him in those difficult years. As I say, on behalf of my Party I support the motion of condolence and, indeed, send our sympathy to his wife, Eileen, and to his family. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I would like to associate myself and my colleagues with the condolence motion that has been moved today and to extend our sympathies to Mr Roberton's family. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I was privileged to know Hugh Roberton from the time that he came into this Parliament and indeed up until very recent months. I think the thing that stands out in my mind is the warmth of the man. The man was a true Scot. He rejoiced in his Scottish background. He rejoiced in the whole of the character of Scotland. He had a very warm and whimsical humour which all his friends knew, and he gave warmth and friendship to his friends. He brought to this Parliament a strong sense of humanity, which was reflected in his actions and his speeches here, and he carried that throughout his life. He was very fortunate indeed to have a devoted wife to look after him throughout those years, and particularly in his later years. I just want to pay tribute to him as a man and as a friend, and extend my sympathy to his wife and daughter in their present sorrow. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986, now before Parliament, should be withdrawn because: 1. There is growing concern about the economic concentration of the seed industry and the loss of traditional food plant varieties in overseas countries with this legislation. 2. Genes, seeds and other plant genetic material should remain a public resource. 3. The demand for uniformity, imposed by P.V.R. legislation, reduces genetic variability and could lead to the loss of traditional genetic material. 4. P.V.R. will discourage the free exchange of information, seeds and genetic material and is therefore likely to adversely affect Australia's public breeding programs. 5. Our choice of food, its quality and nutritional value will increasingly be determined by the interests of large overseas companies rather than those of the Australian consumer. 6. There is no requirement in the bill for superiority or for merit testing of varieties to protect the interests of our farmers. 7. The bill can be interpreted to allow the registering of ``discoveries'' of previously unknown Australian native plants, many of which may have great social and/or economic value. 8. P.V.R. will mean higher costs for the farmer and the consumer and an increased burden on the Australian taxpayer. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament recognise the widespread community opposition to P.V.R. and promote alternative incentives for plant breeding in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned for the future stability of the Tasmanian forestry industry as a result of continued attempts to disrupt our vital industry. We humbly draw your attention to the continued efforts by the Tasmanian Government and all those persons who derive their livelihood from the State's forestry industry to abide by guidelines established as a result of several Environmental Impact Studies, State regulations and a Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments. Your humble petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to ensure stability of our industry by informing the people of Australia of the moves being taken by the forestry industry in Tasmania to preserve the environment and to farm our forest resources for the mutual benefit of all Australians now and in the future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 200 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: If, there is to be legal process against alleged war criminals resident in Australia, the foundations of justice should be clear and equitable. 1. Let the term, ``war crime'', be first clearly defined. 2. Let specific prosecutions be swiftly launched against those individuals alleged to have committed them, thus releasing the rest of their co-nationals from unwarranted slur and suspicion. 3. Let an Australian tribunal hear the charges. Nobody should be deported to face the ``tender mercies'' of any foreign government. 4. Let the presumption of innocence until proved guilty be clearly established. 5. Let all evidence obtained from the Soviet or any other communist government be set aside and totally disregarded. 6. Let all the costs of any person charged and found not guilty be paid by the Commonwealth Government so that innocent people are not financially ruined in the course of establishing their innocence. As your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Gareth Evans (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in 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 Richardson (from 240 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Australia Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that Raoul Wallenberg was arrested by the Russians in Budapest on January 17, 1945. He has been sighted on numerous occasions since, the last in 1986. Your petitioners pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should approach the Soviet Foreign Minister to seek the release of Raoul Wallenberg and his return to Sweden. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 28 citizens). Petitions received. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (a) That where the place of a senator who is a member of a particular political party becomes vacant before the expiration of the senator's term of service, in the opinion of the Senate a person chosen to fill the vacant place in accordance with section 15 of the Constitution should be the member of the political party duly nominated by that party to fill that place; and (b) That the Senate notes that, the Victorian Cain Labor Government, following a long line of similar instances, accepted the Liberal Party's nominee to fill the casual vacancy left by the death of Senator Alan Missen, and deplores the threatened actions of Premier Gray in ignoring the spirit of the Constitution in this regard. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Select Committee on Television Equalisation meeting during any sitting of the Senate for the period up to, and including, 23 March 1987. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Safeguards Office-Annual Report 1985-86. 2. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Expenditure for February 1987. 3. Review of the A.C.T. Adoption of Children Ordinance 1965-Human Rights Commission Report-Pursuant to Section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 4. Australian Wheat Board-Annual Report 1985-86-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 63 of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984. 5. Report of the Inquiry into the Distribution of Federal Road Grants. 6. National Research Fellowships Advisory Committee-Report on Fellowships Awarded for 1987. 7. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd-Annual Report 1985-86-Together with the Auditor-General's Report. 8. Commonwealth Fire Board-Annual Report 1985-86. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Ryan is absent from Australia, having left on 5 March for a visit to the United States of America. She will return on 18 March. During her absence the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, will be Acting Minister for Education. Any questions in this chamber that would normally be directed to Senator Ryan in relation to her portfolio or those she represents should be directed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Tate. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, has been appointed Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer Affairs. Any questions in this chamber in relation to Mr Jones's new portfolios should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, unfortunately not in his capacity as the assistant to Inspector Clousseau but rather as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer him to various reports on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and in the Sun-Herald and the Times on Sunday news- papers concerning the efforts of a senior Customs investigator, Mr Frank Malkoun, to investigate various complaints. I ask: Is it a fact that Mr Malkoun was looking into allegations of unauthorised movement of shipping containers and failure to examine containers of cargo which had been targeted by the Customs Intelligence Unit? If that is so, what did those inquiries reveal? Is it also a fact that within the past two weeks Mr Malkoun has been taken off his assignment, and, if so, why? I further ask: Are inquiries continuing into the allegations and, if so, who is conducting them? Senator BUTTON —I have been advised by the Comptroller-General of Customs that the Internal Affairs Unit, staffed on a needs basis by an independent person qualified to investigate corruption allegations of this kind, is treating these allegations very seriously. The matter referred to in the media reports refers to information given in confidence and anonymously by several Australian Customs Service officers to Customs investigation officer Malkoun in which these officers expressed dissatisfaction with practices in cargo control and suspicions regarding the conduct of some officers. Mr Malkoun reports that the officers were unwilling to take their allegations to the Internal Affairs Unit of Customs. A report subsequently prepared by Mr Malkoun was based on hearsay, rumour and unsubstantiated comments made in each case anonymously. The Collector of Customs in New South Wales has appointed two senior and highly experienced investigation officers to take up this investigation; but the point is made that, unless the anonymous officers who made these allegations earlier are prepared to provide more detailed information, there may not be much hope of satisfactorily resolving the question. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister whether the officers are anonymous in the sense that their identity is not known to Mr Malkoun. I further ask: Is there any suggestion that they were not prepared to go to the Internal Affairs Unit because of concern about the propriety or trustworthiness of that Unit? Senator BUTTON —I cannot answer that question in the specifics which Senator Chaney seeks. I assume from the information which I currently have available that their identity is known to Mr Malkoun. I am unable to speak of their concern or otherwise in regard to going to the Internal Affairs Unit. Senator Chaney —Could you find out and let us know? Senator BUTTON —Yes. I will certainly try to obtain an answer as soon as possible. Senator ELSTOB —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport refers to road safety. Is the Minister aware of any plans to reintroduce community service television announcements, such as those sponsored in the past by petroleum companies, in which tips for safe motoring are demonstrated? Does the Minister agree that such demonstrations could provide valuable information on safe driving skills that are normally acquired only after years of driving experience? Will the Minister investigate this concept as a way of increasing community education in road safety? Senator GIETZELT —The Government is particularly interested in creating community awareness about road safety. The whole community shares this concern. This Government-particularly the Minister for Transport-is committed to reducing deaths and injuries resulting from road crashes. As Senator Elstob said, private companies have attempted to assist in that process. The Government's road safety strategy is largely centred on three principal factors-making vehicles as safe as possible, making roads as safe as possible and making drivers as safe as possible. Of course, there are limitations because this requires consultation and co-operation with State governments. The Government believes those objectives are being realised; there has been a noticeable fall-off in road fatalities since 1983 as compared with the previous five years. This is a result of the efforts of my colleague, Mr Morris, particularly. Currently the Government is looking at giving some priority to the human factor in road crashes. This involves a survey of the number of young drivers who are involved in road crashes. I heard on the radio in the last 24 hours some reference to the percentage of young people involved in road crashes. I am advised that drivers in the age group of 17 to 25, who represent only 15 per cent of the population, comprise 35 per cent of all road fatalities. We are anxious to continue the work that has been done by the Caltex and Mobil oil companies. Obviously, such community service announcements by other large corporations in Australia would assist the Government and therefore the community in trying to reduce still further the alarmingly high number of fatalities, particularly amongst young drivers. Senator ARCHER —Can the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce confirm that, since the arrest of a senior Customs officer recently on charges relating to heroin importation, an officer from the Australian Capital Territory sub-collectorate, which comes under the control of the New South Wales Collector, has been suspended? If so, what are the reasons for the suspension? Further, can the Minister confirm that an ex-Customs officer, now working for a Customs agent in Sydney, has been arrested and charged with extortion? Is it a fact that this former officer is alleged to have asked an importer to pay more than the amount required for duty and the cost of processing in order, allegedly, to buy off Customs officers? Senator BUTTON —I can neither confirm nor deny those allegations, but I will attempt to get an answer as quickly as possible. The allegations contained in the question are ones of substance. Senator AULICH —My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In light of threatened moves by Premier Gray and the Liberal Government of Tasmania to block the appointment of the official Australian Labor Party nominee, Mr John Devereux, to fill the forthcoming Senate vacancy, what, if any, plans does the Government have to place the issue before the Constitutional Commission or, alternatively, to put a further constitutional amendment to a referendum? Senator GARETH EVANS —The whole question of the filling of casual vacancies is an issue that no doubt will be looked at by the Constitutional Commission as part of its systematic evaluation of the operation of the present Constitution, particularly in the light of recent and foreshadowed events. But the Government has no present plans to put any further amendment of section 15 of the Constitution to referendum. The basic reason that the Government has no such plans at the moment is that there is simply no need to make any change to the existing constitutional provision given the clarity of both the letter and the spirit of the existing provision, given the overwhelming endorsement that that clause received both for its letter and its spirit in the 1977 referendum, where there was a majority in all six States, totalling some 3 1/2 million in all, together with, as I have implied, a clear-cut majority in Tasmania, and given the body of precedent which has developed in the 13 separate vacancies that have been filled since 1977, which course of practice makes it absolutely clear that the Gray Government is completely one out in its evident unwillingness to accept the ALP's nominee. Finally, it is unnecessary to have a referendum given the ease with which the matter can be resolved if Mr Gray accepts the very belated advice that he is being given after a great deal of initial confusion, backing and filling and having two bob each way by the Liberal Party heirarchy and by his Federal party leaders. Senator Durack —Who put up the referendum in the first place? Senator GARETH EVANS —It must be acknowledged, in the light of that interjection, that it has taken a considerable time for the Federal Opposition to get its act together on this matter. Last Thursday Senator Chaney was saying, as reported widely-I would be interested to know whether he denies the reports that appeared the following day-that he did not believe that the official nomination was untouchable. He is quoted as saying that if there is a view in the State Parliament that the person nominated by the party is not a fit person to fill the vacancy the Parliament should have access to other nominations. Last Thursday we had the extraordinary picture of Mr Howard refusing to comment on three separate occasions when the issue was put to him during the day while he scrambled around getting, by telephone, the advice and consent of his colleagues. Finally, there was an expression of tentative support for the convention in question. Senator Durack —I take a point of order, Mr President. Senator Evans's answer is debating the point and it is debating the point totally unfairly. He is not acknowledging the fact that the referendum to which he referred was passed on the proposal of the present Opposition when in government. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order, but I point out to Senator Evans that he was asked to reply on what action the Government was taking. He should limit his remarks to that part of the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me conclude that part of my answer then, Mr President, by saying simply that when Mr Howard's final response did come out, no doubt he was reinforced by the statement that had apparently been made by his Deputy Leader, Mr Brown, who in the meantime was saying publicly how incensed he, Mr Brown, was by Senator Chaney's comments on this particular matter. I am glad that the Opposition has got its act together now on this matter because it has been and continues to be, so long as Premier Gray refuses to recant, a quite disgraceful episode in this country's constitutional history. It follows, of course, a period of disgraceful such episodes back in 1975 when Queensland and then New South Wales did exactly what is in issue here. In the Queensland case it was the very same incidence of refusal to accept a nominee of the particular party and appointment by contrast of some stooge who was notionally a member of the party in question. It was in everybody's mind at the time of the drafting and putting to the 1977 referendum that the convention should be followed and that the official nominee should be adopted. Indeed, it was in Mr Ellicott's mind as Attorney-General when he said, in the course of the second reading debate: The person chosen was a member of the late Senator Milliner's Party but had not been nominated by it. Mr Ellicott was clearly hanging his hat on the existence of this convention which has now been so spectacularly torn up by the Tasmanian Liberal Government. For a convention to exist, there needs to be either a clear-cut course of precedent supporting, in a compelling way, the particular practice that is argued, or where there is an absence of such precedent-- Senator Durack —Can't you even stop talking? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no doubt that this hurts Senator Durack because he has displayed a contemptibly spineless attitude to conventions of this kind and to constitutional proprieties during the whole time that he has had any responsibility for these matters. I do not doubt that he is squealing like a stuck pig at the moment because his record is not one for any constitutionalist or any lawyer to be proud of. I make the point that there is a clear-cut convention-- Senator Walters —Mr President, I take a point of order. It ill becomes someone who has been dropped from the Attorney-Generalship to cast any aspersions on anyone on this side of the chamber. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, but clearly Senator Evans is beginning to debate the issue. I ask him to conclude his remarks. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, it is an important matter which relates to the reasons why the Government is not proposing to put this matter at this stage to referendum but why we take the view that there is a clear-cut convention which makes it unnecessary, provided people behave in a reasonable way, and not like the barbarians that exist opposite, on these occasions. The point that I am making-it is an important one-is that a convention is established either by a course of precedent or, in the absence of such a precedent, by compelling, logical argument in favour of the practice claimed to exist. In this instance we have both. We have not only a compelling, logical argument-otherwise an open-ended deadlock would be created in that situation-but also a constant course of precedent of 13 such examples of people being appointed when they have been the official party nominee. Moreover, there have been ample indications in the course of parliamentary debates of both Government leaders and Opposition leaders in the State parliaments in question overtly acknowledging that the precedent should be accepted on the basis of the acceptance of the official nominee of the party in question. I refer, without quoting it, because I acknowledge your desire, Mr President, that this answer should eventually terminate, to the reference made by Mr Hamer as Victorian Premier in arguing for or nominating Senator Neal to replace Senator Webster. I quote the statements made by Mr Davies, the then Leader of the Opposition, in support of it, although he did not like it-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. Mr President, my point of order is that some minutes ago you drew attention to the fact that the Minister was beginning to debate the question. He has made some jocular reference to your ruling in passing as he raves on. I ask you to call him to order and sit him down. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to take notice of the comments that I made earlier and conclude his answer as soon as possible. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will do just that, Mr President. I refer, though, to the statement made by Mr Davies, without quoting it, because it speaks for itself on the record, when supporting-although he did not like him and said he did not like him-Senator Martyr to replace Senator Rocher. I refer to the support clearly expressed by Jeff Kennett, the Victorian Leader of the Opposition-no civilised constitutional virtue there usually-without any shadow of doubt for the official nomination of Senator Powell for Senator Chipp. The coat-trailing by the Tasmanian Premier in the last few days has not been funny. It does not deserve the kind of applause it has received in some quarters as some kind of inspired piece of political mischief-making. It shows nothing less than contempt for the constitutional traditions and values accepted by the vast majority of Australians. As such it has been nothing less than a contemptible exercise. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask the Minister to table the paper from which he so extensively quoted. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator Gareth Evans —No, I decline to do so, Mr President, on the grounds of con- fidentiality. The PRESIDENT —The Minister will not table the document. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw attention to the presence in the public gallery of a delegation of Greek parliamentarians led by Minister Valvis, Minister for the Aegean in the Greek Parliament. On behalf of all honourable senators I welcome them to the Parliament and wish them a successful visit to Australia. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the Minister to a publication entitled `Bulletin No. 5' from the Call to Australia organisation in South Australia which alleges that in Sweden `children five years and under are required to receive a laser tattoo number on the forehead'. First, can the Minister say whether such a practice is followed in Sweden? Secondly, can the Minister say whether this Government intends, as the Call to Australia bulletin also alleges, to consider adopting such a policy in Australia? Thirdly, if the Government is considering this policy, can the Minister say whether it has taken into account the real problems that chicken pox or teenage acne could pose to the security of a laser-imprinted forehead bar code? Finally, given the seriousness of the concerns being expressed in the community, by the Australian Democrats and by others opposed to the Australia Card about the possible consequences of the Australia Card, what measures can the Government take to stop organisations such as the Call to Australia trivialising the debate and reducing the impact of reasoned arguments against the card by making these sorts of outrageous claims? Senator BUTTON —As far as I am aware there is no action the Government can or would take against organisations such as Call to Australia. We live in a pluralist society. Those of us in government are reminded of that every day at Question Time when we have to put up with questions from the Opposition. We live in a democratic society, and tolerance is very important for a community such as ours. I have not seen the allegations made in the Call to Australia publication to which the honourable senator refers. I have always regarded the Swedish people as being a most sophisticated people who have a very high regard-perhaps as high as any in the world-for the freedom of the individual and democratic rights. The allegation sounds to me absurd. Nothing is being contemplated by the Australian Government of a similar kind, although I was at a factory in Adelaide yesterday which makes very good fish tags. Perhaps we could put a few of those in people's ears from time to time and it would not do any harm. However, that is not being considered by the Government. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Finance to a copy of the Liberal Party's housing and construction policy which was released last week. Can the Minister indicate what savings would be possible if proposals to abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and absorb those funds into the financial assistance grants to the States were implemented? Senator WALSH —I have seen the policy. If moneys currently paid under the CSHA were to be rolled into general purpose payments to the States or specific purpose payments to the States, there would be no savings at all. That should be apparent even to the rump of the National Party which seems to be left on the Opposition benches, and perhaps to that part of it which has now gone. The only conceivable savings would be in the Commonwealth administration of the program, and they would be negligible. It is the sort of exercise in trivia which one might expect the Waste Watch Committee to indulge in as a way of getting the names of the various members of the Waste Watch Committee who are vying for a position on the front bench of the Opposition in the papers on Monday morning or perhaps, with a bit of luck, even to get themselves on A.M. or some similar program. As a serious exercise in savings it is too trivial to be considered seriously. There are, however, other more important dangers in the Opposition's proposal. Those sums which are presently identified specifically for pensioner housing, Aborigines, crisis accommodation and mortgage and rent relief would no longer be necessarily designated for those purposes. Also, it would open up scope for the massive misdirection of funds by some State governments. One does not need to be a particularly diligent student of recent Australian political history and public administration to identify the State government where that is most likely to happen. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to the comments by the Chairman of the Government's Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, Professor Fred Gruen, following the release of the report of the Indicative Planning Council at last Friday's meeting of the Australian Housing Council. Does the Minister agree with Professor Gruen that a fall of at least 3 per cent in short term interest rates will be needed before there is any chance of a drop in home loan interest rates? Does the Minister further agree with Professor Gruen's comment: `I don't at the moment see that market rates will come down sufficiently to reduce the current 15.5 per cent housing rate'? Senator WALSH —I refer Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle to paragraph 1.4 of the report, which contains phrases such as the `considerable uncertainty in the outlook for interest rates' and `there are inevitable differences of view'. It contains that sort of language. Those are actual phrases taken from the report. The report makes it abundantly clear that there are working assumptions, interim assessments and so on. The working assumptions and interim assessments made by the Indicative Planning Council necessarily reflect the advice of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia because there are 15 other representatives on that Council, from a number of trading banks, building societies, unions, building industry representatives, academics and other government departments. It should be noted also that in the discussion on interest rates the IPC report lists policies which would improve the climate for interest rate falls, including restraint in labour costs, a lowering of inflation and a steady improvement in the balance of payments. Although I would not hang too much on the figures released today, they are certainly in keeping with the very significant improvement in the balance of payments for the first eight months of this year compared with the first eight months of the previous year. The report noted also that the May economic statement could have some effect. All of those conditions which the IPC report saw as being important for interest rate reductions are being met by the Government. As to the specific reference to Professor Gruen's comment on the need for a 3 per cent general decline in interest rates before housing interest rates will come down, I do not want to either endorse or necessarily disagree with that; I think it is very much in the realm of opinion. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I have a supplementary question. I note what the Minister has advised, but as I understand it the Indicative Planning Council includes representatives of the Federal Treasury and the Reserve Bank who provide economic information to the Council. I now ask the Minister whether he is able to give us any information on the advice which was given by the Treasury or the Reserve Bank to the Council and on which it based the recommendations to which I referred in my earlier question. Senator WALSH —Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said `recommendations'. I am not sure whether she meant to say `conclusions'. However, according to my advice it is correct that there is a representative of the Treasury and of the Reserve Bank of Australia on that Council. I do not know what opinions were given to the IPC by officers representing those institutions, but I pointed out in response to the initial question that the conclusions of the IPC-phrased in the context of such terms as `working assumptions' and `interim assessments'-are not necessarily the views of the officers of those two organisations or of the organisations themselves. Senator COONEY —I direct my questions to the Special Minister of State. What procedures are used by the Australian Federal Police in questioning suspects? Are any limits set on the time spent in questioning suspects? Senator TATE —In questioning a suspect, the Australian Federal Police would, I believe, adhere to the rules which are generally known as the judges' rules regarding the proper safeguards which should be adhered to in such times of questioning. So there is a common law basis for the proper conduct of such questioning which I have no doubt the Australian Federal Police would observe. In addition, I think it is correct to say that, in relation to certain classes of persons, the Australian Federal Police adopt specific safeguards-for example, in relation to the questioning of minors, women, and Aboriginals. I understand-and I can make details available to Senator Cooney-that there are special safeguards which are undertaken, for example the presence of a guardian or parent in the case of the questioning of a minor. As far as time limits are concerned, I understand that members of the Australian Federal Police in their activities in the various jurisdictions of Australia-I would need to take some further advice on this-adopt the practice in the jurisdiction in which they find themselves. I take it that Senator Cooney means the time before the suspect has to be brought before a magistrate. There is no particular legislation dealing with the time aspect in the Australian Capital Territory. I think there would need to be some further reflection on that matter in the context of the Criminal Investigation Bill which has been with the Parliament and the Government for many years. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the top level housing policy advisory body, the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, has concluded in its latest report that it is unlikely that housing interest rates will fall before the middle of next year? Does the Minister agree that this assessment, made after the announcement of the 14 May mini-Budget, is entirely consistent with the prediction by Dr R. G. Hawkins of the Department of Housing and Construction, who wrote the briefing notes tabled by the Minister for Education in the Senate on 25 February? Does the Government still dispute the view of Dr Hawkins and of the Indicative Planning Council and, if so, why? Senator WALSH —I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the question from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. Senator BLACK —Has the Special Minister of State seen a media report in which the Queensland National Party State President, Sir Robert Sparkes, is quoted as saying that his Party, if elected to government federally, would retrospectively change electoral laws requiring publication of the names of major election campaign donors? What impact would this have on the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act? Senator TATE —I have seen in the Canberra Times dated 5 March 1987 a quotation attributed by the reporter to Sir Robert Sparkes. When Sir Robert was asked whether the electoral laws requiring publication of the names of major donors would be a problem, Sir Robert said: `We'll just change that retrospectively'. I have also seen a report in the Australian dated 7 March to the same effect. In answers to several questions asked by Senator Black at the beginning of this session I indicated for the advice of political organisations and potential donors that there are quite stringent provisions in the Commonwealth electoral laws which state that if a person indicates an intention to nominate and subsequently stands at an election that person is a candidate for the purposes of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. After an election certain provisions come into effect which require that within a certain number of weeks after the election returns are put in detailing donations that are received and the names of donors. I believe this applies above the threshold of $200 for an individual gift or $1,000 for a corporate gift. Having indicated that over several weeks, I must say I was quite astonished to see Sir Robert Sparkes show such utter contempt for our democratic electoral processes as to suggest that he could retrospectively alter what I believe to be a fundamental right of the general public to know whether somebody has by way of a major donation purchased some influence with the successful political party. I would have thought that this Parliament, having passed that particular provision into law, would be horrified at the thought that the National Party, if it were to come to power-of course we know it will not; nevertheless it is something that ought to be considered by us and by the general public-would pass retrospective legislation in effect to deny the operation of those particular provisions in relation to the forthcoming Federal election. We already know Mr Howard's reaction when faced with the proposition from Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen that Sir Joh would retrospectively do away with the bottom of the harbour legislation. Mr Howard quite properly pointed out that that would put $700m into the hands of the white-shoe brigade and was something that could not be tolerated. Here we have another instance of the Queensland branch of the National Party being willing to engage in the passage of retrospective legislation, this time to do away with I think is a fundamental part of the safeguarding of the honesty of our electoral process. It should be pointed out to Sir Robert that unless there is a double dissolution the composition of the Senate in the autumn session next year, if we have an ordinary election at the end of this year, will be the same as it presently is. I cannot believe that this chamber would allow itself to be used, to be manipulated, by Sir Robert Sparkes in order to change or repeal those provisions. I can assure those political organisations and potential donors that the Senate will not be party to repealing those provisions, and they should be aware, therefore, that there will be a need for full disclosure of donations and the identity of donors concerned. Quite apart from that legislation, though, it is worth pointing out that I am sure that this Parliament, through its committee system, would not stand by and allow any allegations of impropriety during a Federal election to go unexamined. I believe that, quite apart from legislation, it could well be that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform or some similar parliamentary body, either a joint committee or a committee of either of the chambers, would itself investigate any claim that undue influence was being purchased by way of donations which were to remain anonymous. I predict that such an inquiry would be instituted, and once again those political organisations and potential donors who might be involved in responding to Sir Robert Sparkes's blandishments and assurances that the donors may remain anonymous would need to know that a joint committee has full power to require people to attend before it, to require the disclosure of documents and records and to require answers. In summary, no one should think that because Sir Robert Sparkes has shown a complete contempt for our electoral process and would be willing to bring retrospective legislation into this chamber-which is something I would not have thought would appeal to his colleagues on the other side of the chamber-this legislation would be passed through this chamber. In any case, a parliamentary committee would deal with any allegations of corruption of our electoral processes. Senator PETER BAUME —I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind Senator Button that he told the conference of the Women's Electoral Lobby last weekend that, in the short term at least, Australian living standards will need to fall. Will the Minister now outline to the Senate how the standards of living of Australians might fall, over what period and for which Australians-whether it will be those less able or least able to bear the fall in living standards? Senator BUTTON —I did not say at the Women's Electoral Lobby conference-Senator Peter Baume was there and ought to know better-that Australian living standards will need to fall. I said that Australian living standards have had to fall as a result of a decline in national income. That is a very different proposition but I do not want to argue about that. The fact of the matter is that this is a time of declining national income, and the community has had to adjust to that. I cannot go through all of the areas in respect of Australian citizens where adjustments will have to take place. Adjustments will have to take place, consequent upon reductions in government expenditure, in a wide variety of areas. But let me say that the situation of welfare recipients in this community, particularly welfare recipients with dependent children, has not been comparatively prejudiced by the adjustment which has had to take place. The adjustment has been reflected in restraint mainly in incomes-a 7 per cent decline in real wages during the period of this Government. Senator Chaney —Talk about low earners with children. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney interjects: `Talk about low income earners with children'. I agree that, in trying to balance the restraint which is necessary, the low income earning section of the community has probably been more adversely affected than many other sectors of the community. The point I simply want to make in this respect is that part of that has been due to wage indexation and wage restraint. The last wage increase granted a flat increase. It was the Government's submission to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that there should be a flat increase because that was comparatively more beneficial to lower income earners than to higher income earners. That was the purpose of the Government's submission. The policy of the Liberal Party of Australia, articulated or yapped over the last two or three years on this issue, has been to have a wage freeze. If there was anything calculated to damage the interests of low income earners it would be a wage freeze, but that has been the consistent policy of Senator Peter Baume's Party, which enjoys the beautiful fork-tongued operation. It complains about falling living standards in a time of reduction in national income and at the same time advocates a wage freeze which would adversely affect particularly low income earners in this community. His Party cannot have it all ways. The electorate and the people will find it out for this sort of fork-tongued approach that it adopts to these issues. Senator Walsh —They have. Senator BUTTON —`They have', as somebody has interjected. It is impossible for me at Question Time to go across the whole range of groups in this community, as the honourable senator's question suggested I might do, and to say what the burden has been and how it has been reflected in various sectors of the community. But I take the opportunity of thanking him for his question and for giving me an opportunity to make clear what I was saying at the Women's Electoral Lobby meeting on Saturday, which I think everybody but him seemed to have understood. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and it follows his answer to Senator Peter Baume's question and also to a question asked by Senator Chaney earlier in this session regarding family living standards. Can the Minister say whether this Government's dramatic increase in the number of child care places, in secondary school retention and Austudy places, in tertiary sector education places, in the Medicare coverage of two million people previously uninsured and uncovered, and in the 600,000-plus people in jobs-to name just a few items-ought to be taken into account in looking at this Government's record in respect of family living standards? Senator BUTTON —The short answer to Senator Crowley's question is yes. But in order that the members of the Opposition might be better educated on this issue I propose to elaborate briefly on some of the points which Senator Crowley has referred to in her question. For example, when this Government came to office unemployment was well in excess of 10 per cent, and it is now 8.2 per cent. Senator Hill —It is 25 per cent for young people. Senator BUTTON —I am talking about unemployment, Senator. If the honourable senator would listen to what I am saying he might understand the point. It is now 8.2 per cent. Personally I happen to believe that that is an unrealistically high figure because of all sorts of odd things that are happening-- Senator Chaney —Do you mean it is not a real figure? Senator BUTTON —Yes. The fact of the matter is that there has been a significant reduction in unemployment with 727,000 new jobs created by this Government. On the latest figures which I have, 727,000 new jobs have been created by this Government in 45 months, which compares with 340,000 new jobs created in 88 months of Liberal-National Country Party government between 1975 and 1982-340,000 in 88 months. Of course, in terms of community burden, the reduction in unemployment and the creation of new jobs are most important because the very factor of being a social welfare recipient is damaging to community morale and so on. I could go through a whole range of the issues raised by Senator Crowley. The considerable increase in numbers of students completing year 12 in the education system is, for a variety of reasons, a very important change in this country. Senator Parer does not think so. He nods his head. Senator Parer —There are no jobs for young people. Senator BUTTON —He nods his head. Is that the reason? Is he a National Party senator? Senator Walsh —No, Liberal. Senator BUTTON —A Liberal Queenslander, I am sorry. If he was from the National Party he probably would not be here today. But Senator Parer apparently thinks that that is because of-- Senator Parer —There are no jobs for young people. Senator BUTTON —Well, can Senator Parer explain why there was not a 30 per cent increase in school attendance when his Party was in government and the unemployment figures were much higher? How does he explain that? Senator Chaney —Youth unemployment was not higher for a start. Senator BUTTON —Interest rates were not higher either, Senator Chaney. They were; they were! I am being greatly assisted by all the interjections. Senator Crowley has made some very important points on a number of issues, and obviously members of the Opposition who are not well-informed about these matters want further information. I will certainly see that they get it. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I draw the attention of the Minister to a practice called badge show day which is held in Broken Hill every quarter by unions to ensure that employees are paid up union members. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the badge show day rules, which are printed in the local paper, include: Instructions that all members of affiliated unions shall not work on a shift with any non-unionist or with any member of an affiliated union not in possession of a recognised badge. No employee can commence work until they have been cleared by the head steward; . . . Any employee found guilty of working on `Badge Show Day' without a badge shall be fined the equivalent of a day's pay. Does the Minister agree that these rules make a mockery of statements by the Labor Government that unionism is not compulsory in Australia? Does he also agree with the recent editorial in the Australian which describes closed shops as `the most unjustifiable bulwarks of trade union power' and `a fundamental breach of civil liberties'? Finally, is this the sort of stupidity which is one of the root causes of the lack of productivity and competitiveness of our Australian industries? Senator BUTTON —First of all, let me say that there is no legislation or any regulation in Australia that makes trade unionism compulsory. Senator Walters —There is union preference. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I do not know how much I have to put up with this. Senator Walters may have renal colic or something like that which produces these low moans every now and again, but I should not have to put up with it always at Question Time. Let me say to Senator Parer that there is no legislation or regulation in Australia that makes trade unionism compulsory. It is true that there are certain circumstances that are matters of practice or negotiation within particular industries where there is full union membership in plants. It is also true that in Broken Hill there have been long established traditions in labour relations matters. Senator Parer may remember only a few years ago when people used to talk about the Broken Hill industrial relations climate as a successful one because, when there were disagreements, they were argued out and negotiated and contracts were entered into a la some of the proposals now put forward by John Howard and the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, Mr Brown. Those people have proposed exactly the sorts of arrangements that used to exist at Broken Hill and be widely admired. Senator Parer complains about them today. The fact is that they produced satisfactory results in Broken Hill from the point of view of an industrial relations record. At a time when this country is becoming increasingly competitive in a wide range of activities, Senator Parer really has to gouge the bottom of the barrel to dig up this sort of example, which has presumably just recently come to his notice. I am not saying that I approve of or agree with everything that happens at Broken Hill. If I were a feminist, I certainly would not do so and, being a Labor politician and a Minister in this Government, I do not do so. But the fact is that those arrangements have worked over the years. Different circumstances apply in different situations. As I said at the beginning, there are no regulations or laws that provide for compulsory unionism in Australia. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to a report in the Courier-Mail of 11 March 1987 concerning the imminent sale of the Balbah Downs property of a former National Party organiser, Mr Michael Behan. Has a natural disaster relief arrangements loan of $145,000 been made to Mr Behan in respect of that property? Does the sale throw any light on whether the loan guidelines were correctly applied in making the loan? What are the implications for the Commonwealth funds involved in the loan as a result of the property's sale? Senator WALSH —In response to the first part of the question, as to whether the natural disaster relief arrangements guidelines were correctly applied when the loan was made, the prima facie answer would appear to be no, because one of those guidelines, and a very important guideline, is that the loans should be made only to farmers who would be viable if such a loan were made. The fact that the property is now for sale-and evidently a forced sale or something very close to a forced sale-dem- onstrates that it is not now considered to be viable, some eight months after the loan was made, despite the fact that beef cattle prices, particularly I understand in north Queensland, are very satisfactory. Indeed, for those who remember the background of this case, the administering authority recommended against the loan being granted and that recommendation was overruled by the Queensland Minister of the day, Mr Turner, presumably acting under instructions from higher up in the National Party hierarchy, just as some Queensland members of this House apparently act on such instructions. I have written to all State Treasurers regarding that aspect of NDRA guidelines and the adherence to those guidelines. I have not received replies from all State Treasurers yet. In answer to the second part of the question in relation to the implications for Commonwealth funding of the sale of the property and the repayment of the loan, it would appear that in round figures about $109,000 of the $145,000 initial loan came from Commonwealth sources. The NDRA guidelines are very clear on what must happen if and when the loan is repaid; that is, that three-quarters of the Commonwealth initial funding must be immediately returned to the Commonwealth. That is something over $81,000. I will do everything I can to ensure that that money is returned to the Commonwealth, before it is either stuffed into a hollow log or misdirected into the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation-or before it follows Alan Bond's $400,000 into Petersen's back pocket. Senator MACKLIN —I ask the Minister for Finance whether it is true that since the deregulation of the financial system the level of overseas borrowings by Australian companies has increased to such an extent that in the last 12 months loan repayments equalled the entire income of the Australian meat and sheep industries, or of our minerals and metals industries. Does the Government consider that the level of overseas borrowings by private companies and the purposes to which those borrowings are put constitute a major problem for Australia's external debt and that immediate intervention by the Government to regulate such borrowings is necessary? Senator WALSH —I did not get all of the question down. Part of the question was whether the purposes to which the funds are put are a major contributor to our present current account deficit problem. It is not so much a question of the purposes. There are two possibilities. The current account deficit is an entirely separate issue and I thought I had explained that during the last session in such a way that even the Australian Democrats should have been able to understand it. Senator Chaney —Maximilian Walsh does not agree with you. Senator WALSH —No. Maximilian Walsh, in his latest incarnation, as I note in the Sydney Morning Herald, is now a bourgeois left populist. Having previously been a ratbag right populist, he is now a bourgeois left populist. Insofar as those borrowings encourage a casino mentality in Australia and Australian business, they are in my view quite damaging. They are not, however, the cause of our current account deficit. If the high amounts which the sellers of shares receive are spent on Mercedes cars, world tours, French wines or indeed any luxury imported product that would not otherwise have been purchased, that does marginally aggravate our current account problem. That too is to be deplored. The `fairies at the bottom of the garden' party and the ratbag left, of whom the latest spokesman appears to be Maximilian Walsh, believe that they can wave away our current account problems with a magic wand by neatly reversing cause and effect; that is, by saying that the cause of our current account problem is overseas borrowings whereas overseas borrowings are an effect of our current account problem. Before people in the Opposition look too smug and nod their heads too much I think I ought to add that equally reprehensible, equally snake oily, is the view being touted by the Leader of the Opposition and his acolytes that living standards can be maintained, and even increased on average, through tax cuts. That is just a different brand of snake oil, the brand of snake oil being touted by the bourgeois left. Senator ELSTOB —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. What action has the Government taken to enhance collaborative arrangements and co-operation between Australia and New Zealand on defence equipment? Can the Minister outline the benefits which are likely to flow to our munitions and shipbuilding industries as a result of such action? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Elstob's question is a particularly timely one. It is about a matter of considerable strategic, economic and industrial significance for both Australia and New Zealand. Long-standing recognition of the scope for mutually beneficial collaboration by Australia and New Zealand in the supply and support of defence equipment for their respective forces led to this Government signing a memor- andum of understanding between Australia and New Zealand on defence logistic co-operation in June 1983. Australian and New Zealand defence officials are negotiating a series of annexes to the MOU that address practical issues such as administrative arrangements for co-operative acquisition or support of selected major defence equipment. Common Australian and New Zealand communications requirements lead to close collaboration in the provision of strategic communications for their respective forces. Ongoing collaboration in this area includes exchange of information between project personnel and procurement of common equipment. The Australian Army and its New Zealand counterpart have a common requirement for a wide range of munitions and equipment. In February 1987 this common requirement culminated in contracts by Australia's Office of Defence Production for supply to New Zealand of 24 105-millimetre light guns and 18,000 Steyr Aug-1 rifles at a cost of $A15.5m and $A24m respectively. For its part, Australian industry derives substantial benefit in terms of larger markets and longer production runs for specialised defence equipment. However, mutually beneficial collaboration in the supply and support of defence equipment depends importantly on equitable involvement in such activity by both Australian and New Zealand industry. Air New Zealand Ltd has, in the past, contracted for the maintenance of gas turbine engines used by the RAN's destroyers. New Zealand industry will be able to supply a significant number of components for the new rifles for both Australian and New Zealand armed forces. In the 1990s, the Australian and New Zealand navies will need to introduce new surface combatants with similar characteristics. To facilitate exploration of the scope for potentially significant collaboration in this area, the respective Defence Ministers signed a memorandum of understanding earlier this month. If its potential is realised, the project offers exciting prospects for involvement by Australian and New Zealand industry in meeting a joint requirement for up to 12 ships. This trans-Tasman collaboration in the supply and support of defence equipment is an important demonstration of the practical substance of contemporary Australia-New Zealand defence relationships. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister noted recent reports in the Business Review Weekly that the Government intends to introduce new measures to tax superannuation funds and/or the payments therefrom? Is an interdepartmental committee presently examining the taxation treatment of the income of superannuation funds which are presently exempt from tax? When will the Government make clear its position on this vital issue? Senator WALSH —I do not recall seeing anything in the Business Review Weekly recently on that subject, although I have seen one or two other articles. Senator Messner —It was the cover story. Senator WALSH —I do not always read the Business Review Weekly. I cannot recall there being an IDC study on the question. I will refer Senator Messner's question to the Treasurer to see what answer he can give. Senator BUTTON —In Question Time today Senator Chaney and Senator Archer asked me some questions about the Australian Customs Service and about a number of allegations that have been made. I undertook to try to get some further information. In the time that has been available I have been able to get some information. I am not saying that it is complete, but it is perhaps some improvement on what I was able to tell the Senate before. In regard to Senator Chaney's question, I have been advised by the Comptroller-General of Customs that it is believed that Mr Malkoun is aware of the identity of the ACS officers who have made allegations. Secondly, investigating officers in the Internal Affairs Unit are doing everything possible to identify those officers who have put their allegations and concerns to Mr Malkoun. While the Unit will seek co-operation in giving further details and substantiation from the officers making the allegations there is, of course, no power to force the officers to make their identity known. With regard to the question I was asked by Senator Archer, yes, it is true that last year a Canberra Customs Service intelligence officer was involved in an incident in which, in essence, he apparently passed confidential information to members of the organisation known as the Hell's Angels in South Australia. Following investigation he was identified and charged with an offence. He is no longer employed by the Australian Customs Service. Secondly, there were arrests, of course, in Sydney in March involving two Customs officers. Charges have been laid in respect of those matters and they will go before the courts. Thirdly, in relation to an alleged offence by a Customs officer here in Canberra, I think the allegation contained in Senator Archer's question involved a Queanbeyan Customs officer who was supposed to supervise the destruction of spoilt beer. When he was found to be selling it to carriers and passing spoilt beer to others, he was arrested. The officer was suspended from the Australian Customs Service and the case is presently awaiting trial in the courts. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer and supplementary information given by the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) in response to certain Questions without Notice, asked by Senators Chaney and Archer this day, relating to allegations concerning the Australian Customs Service. I do not wish to speak to that motion now. I would, however, like to take the opportunity to thank Senator Button for obtaining further information quickly and for his acknowledgment that he will seek a more complete reply. As part of that, I ask him to ask the Customs Service for advice as to whether the investigating officers, who are seeking to identify the complainants, have questioned Mr Malkoun. If they have questioned Mr Malkoun-apparently he is not giving the names of those officers-I would ask for the reasons why those names are being withheld. It seems from the answer that we have been given that they are known to that officer of the Customs Service, but are not known to the people who are in charge of investigating the matter or who are seeking to investigate the matter beyond Mr Malkoun. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-On behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) I present the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on audio-visual copying by educational institutions and I seek leave to incorporate this statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- On 18 September 1986 the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts tabled its report on `Audio-visual Copying by Educational Institutions'. 2. The Committee's reference was to report on a proposed amendment to the Copyright Amendment Act 1986, and on any related matters arising out of its deliberations. The proposed amendment (section 112a) was intended to enable educational institutions to make copies of television or radio broadcasts, without infringing copyright, where copyright in the broadcast subsisted in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or Special Broadcasting Service. 3. The Committee recommended that the proposed amendment which was the subject of its reference not be proceeded with. This recommendation is accepted by the Government. The proposed amendment did not take into account the layering of copyrights which occurs in audio visual items and therefore suffered technical deficiencies in its wording, as well as uncertainty as to its precise intention. It would also have disadvantaged the ABC and SBS by placing requirements on these broadcasters which would not apply to commercial broadcasters. Most importantly, it represented an attempt only at a partial solution in circumstances where all interests are agreed that a comprehensive scheme to enable educational copying of television programs is required. 4. In place of the proposed amendment, the Committee recommended that the Attorney-General's Department develop the proposal for a statutory licensing scheme outlined in its submission to the Committee, for consideration by Parliament in the 1987 Autumn sittings. 5. This scheme had been developed taking into account objections by schools' representatives to a previous scheme which had been the subject of discussion in 1985 during the Department's Copyright Audiovisual Review. The earlier scheme, which would have enabled copying of programs not commercially available for purchase by educational institutions, was acceptable to copyright owners and higher educational interests. 6. In the light of the objections by schools' representatives the scheme was not proceeded with in the 1986 amendments. It was noted in the Second Reading Speech to the 1986 amendments that common ground was emerging between educationalists and copyright owners, and further work was undertaken by the Department with a view to reaching a generally acceptable scheme. 7. Statutory licensing, which removes the right of copyright owners to prevent copying of their material, is only favoured where it is clear that market mechanisms cannot operate effectively. It has already been accepted that educational institutions require a statutory licence to enable photocopying of works for educational purposes in the circumstances specified in the Copyright Act. 8. However, the complex record-keeping and costly inspection procedures of the photocopying licence introduced in 1980 have been criticised by both educational and copyright owner interests. Work in the audiovisual area has attempted, therefore, to avoid these more onerous aspects of the photocopying scheme, and may point the way to desirable future developments with the photocopying licence. 9. Experience over a number of years leads to the clear conclusion that the need for a statutory licence in respect of television programs is even greater than was the case with photocopying. Educational and copyright interests agree that a statutory licence is required. This was also the conclusion of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. 10. It is common ground also that there is a genuine need for educational access to copies of television programs. The use of audiovisual material in educational institutions has expanded greatly in the last decade and it has become an essential teaching aid in many areas. Limited provision for educational copying of broadcasts is currently made under sub-section 200 (2) of the Copyright Act. That section provides that the making of a record of a sound broadcast, or sound component of a direct television broadcast, will not infringe copyright in respect of the broadcast or any work or sound recording contained in the broadcast. While this was previously relied on to copy ABC `For Schools' television programs, it is generally acknowledged that the right to do so is not, on a proper interpretation, conferred by this provision. It would appear that an exception in relation to film copyright was deliberately omitted, presumably because of the higher costs and risks involved in film making. In this regard it would appear that a distinction was drawn between television and radio broadcasts, as copying of ABC radio `schools broadcasts' is clearly permitted. 11. The complex requirements of copyright law in this area provide an example of the law being overtaken by technological developments. In the absence of a statutory licensing scheme, institutions are required to obtain copying rights from all copyright owners with an interest in the program. As copyright may subsist in the script, background music, sound-track and film, as well as the broadcast itself, there may be five or more separate owners involved. Institutions may have little time for negotiation and may have difficulty in contacting all rights owners. Furthermore, the seeking of permission by institutions is rarely centralised or co-ordinated, while copyright owners have little incentive to join a central collecting society because so much copying goes undetected. 12. On the other hand, the ready availability of copying equipment and the ease with which television broadcasts can be copied has undoubtedly resulted in widespread infringements of copyright and loss of potential revenue for film producers. Clearly, copyright law should provide an incentive for the production of material for use in the educational area. In particular, it is desirable that Australian producers of valuable educational documentary programs be adequately rewarded for their work. 13. It is pleasing to note, in passing, that the constructive role of the Department in attempting to develop a solution broadly acceptable to all parties was acknowledged by witnesses before the Committee. The Committee expressly recognised that the delay in achieving resolution of this matter resulted from the complexity of the issues involved and the difficulty of the parties finding agreement. 14. Extensive consultations with affected interests have taken place before and since the Committee's report using as a basis the Departmental scheme outlined in the report. This scheme, which has now been approved by the Government (with some modifications in the light of the consultations) will enable: (a) educational institutions to make off-air copies of all television programs; (b) copyright owners to claim equitable remuneration, through a single collecting society approved by the Attorney-General; (c) payment to copyright owners as agreed between the parties; or in the absence of agreement, as decided by the Copyright Tribunal; and (d) institutions to elect to pay for the right to copy, either as a levy per student or by full record-keeping and payment for actual material copied. (Remuneration will be calculated taking into account specified factors. In particular, following the Committee's recommendations, the level of remuneration is to take account of the extent to which copying is for time shifting). 15. The scheme's flexibility has several advantages: (a) parties will be free to negotiate terms for the use of the copyright owner's material; (b) the level of remuneration may be decided by sampling or record-keeping; (c) in the absence of agreement, the Copyright Tribunal may determine disputes as to remuneration or conditions under the scheme; (d) unlike the statutory licence for educational photocopying, the success of the scheme will not depend on cumbersome record-keeping requirements and costly inspection of records. 16. The Government considers that the scheme as outlined provides a workable solution to the central problem of enabling access to audiovisual materials by educational institutions, while enabling equitable remuneration for copyright owners. There is substantial support from affected groups for the scheme, although some education authorities are concerned as to its possible cost and copyright owners are concerned that it provide an adequate level of remuneration. This is a matter which will need to be worked out in the practical operation of the scheme, hopefully by negotiation between the relevant parties. However, it is to be noted that educational institutions will not incur any cost unless they choose to avail themselves of the right to copy provided by the scheme. 17. It will be noted also that the proposed scheme applies only in relation to television broadcasts. This is undoubtedly the area of greatest need, both because it is increasingly television programs which are used in schools and also because sub-section 200 (2) of the Copyright Act already provides a workable exception in respect of radio broadcasts intended for educational purposes. 18. Further consideration is being given separately, as to whether educational institutions need a statutory right to copy radio programs, other than those educational programs which may be copied under sub-section 200 (2). This issue is relevant also to the context of proposals for a royalty on blank tape to compensate copyright owners for `home taping' of copyright material. If, as appears likely, voluntary licensing is workable in the audio field, it may be that the need for a statutory right for educational copying could be avoided. This would result in educationalists being exempted from any blank tape royalty payable in respect of domestic copying. 19. Work by the Department on the home taping issue is well advanced, with consultations being held with copyright owners, consumer organisations, arts groups, blank tape manufacturers and importers, retailers and user groups, including educationalists, which may be exempt from any royalty. Once these consultations are completed the Government will consider what action should be taken as a matter of priority. However, it agrees with the Senate Committee that an educational statutory licence for television programs should be introduced as soon as possible in order to overcome the present difficulties for both educationalists and copyright owners. It is not therefore proposed to defer action in this area until decisions are taken in relation to a blank tape royalty. 20. Finally, the Government would like to express appreciation for the report of the Committee. As everyone would agree, the area is a complex one, both because of the technical difficulties of the law and also the difficult task of finding an appropriate balance between the interests of copyright owners and educational institutions. The hearings before the Committee and the report itself have clearly been very valuable in airing important issues and views and in helping the various interests to understand each other's point of view. The position ultimately reached, with there being substantial agreement between all major interests involved, was undoubtedly assisted greatly by the Committee's work. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.19) —I welcome the statement that has just been incorporated in Hansard by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) on behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). As he said, it is the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on the very difficult question of audiovisual copying by educational institutions. The initiative for this exercise in fact came from an amendment which I moved on behalf of the Opposition during a debate on an amendment to the Copyright Act. Last year we debated the Copyright Amendment Bill which contained a number of amendments which I do not need to go into. The Opposition was concerned, and indeed I have been concerned for many years, with the problem educational institutions have in copying audiovisual material for the purposes of teaching at schools. We are all aware, and have been for many years, of the growing importance of the audio-visual field in education, particularly the importance of the use of television and special broadcasts for teaching purposes. For some time there has been provision in the Copyright Act for recording sound broadcasts made for educational purposes. In the past schools have perhaps made more use of that facility than has been fully justified, and that is one reason why there has been a need for adequate amendments to be made to the Copyright Act-to cover this very clear teaching need, which has not been properly addressed in the Act simply because the Act has not kept up to date with modern technology. Some years ago another great deficiency was exposed, namely, the problem with the widespread use of photocopying, particularly in tertiary institutions. That matter was addressed when the Opposition was in government. A scheme for the statutory right of the photocopying by students of material which was required and widely used was set up. Until that scheme was provided the Act was widely breached. The problem was addressed by the Fraser Government in major amendments to the Copyright Act which were made in 1981 and which I had the task of piloting through the Parliament. At about the same time it became clear to me as Attorney-General that the audiovisual copying area required attention. I set in train-I cannot remember in which year-the Attorney-General's Department's audiovisual review. That review apparently is continuing because various references are made to it in the reply from the Government. The amendment, which was proposed by me last year on behalf of the Opposition, did not propose a detailed scheme of that kind because we did not have the necessary facilities. In order to push along the debate on this issue and to get the Government to move on it-it seemed to be singularly slow in doing so-I moved an amendment to the Act which was referred by the Senate to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. This is a very good example of the value of this Senate as a House of review in that the problem was perceived by the Senate and, if I remember correctly, the reference to that Senate Committee was made with the agreement of the Government. It certainly was supported by the Australian Democrats. Senator Colston —The Government agreed. Senator DURACK —I thought it did. We have now had a very valuable report from the Senate Committee which has found deficiencies in the amendment that I moved. I readily concede that the amendment had a number of deficiencies. It was not exactly moved off the cuff but it was clear that we did not have the facilities to develop all the sorts of amendments required to implement a scheme such as the Senate Committee has recommended. The Senate Committee has had the advantage of advice from the Attorney-General's Department. It turned out that the Attorney-General's Department had been doing quite a lot of work to develop the scheme which the Committee has adopted and recommended. I am pleased that the Government is going to act on the Committee's recommendation. It amazes me that the Government had not made better use of the work done by the Attorney-General's Department. As I have said, I initiated the audiovisual review by the Department, which has been going on now for well over four years. One would have thought that a scheme would have been sufficiently worked out for the Government to have included it in the amendments to the Copyright Bill which it introduced last year; but it did not do so. It is a matter of some surprise to me that the work of the departments was not pushed along a bit better and that the Government was not in a position to do anything about it until now, after the report of the Committee. As a result of the needle that the Government has got from the Committee's work, something at last will be done about it. I hope that the Government will not delay any further in getting the legislation drafted and getting it into this Parliament, because I believe that it will be very well received by the Parliament. I cannot speak officially for the Opposition until we have seen the legislation, but I fully applaud the general principle. I am very pleased that the Committee has recommended along those lines. The precedent for this type of solution to the problem, where there are conflicting interests of educationalists and copyright owners, is the photocopying legislation. Pioneering work has already been done in the photocopying field and it is acknowledged by the Government that there are administrative problems in that photocopying legislation. I am not surprised, because it is a very complicated piece of legislation. I hope that that experience has shown that it can be administered in a more reasonable manner. I hope that the legislation which comes before us will reflect the experience that has been obtained and will get rid of the bugs that have no doubt developed with that photocopying scheme. The Government has said that it expects this to be done in a more simple way than the photocopying legislation, but it seems to me, from the remarks made by the Attorney-General, that the Government is following more or less the same lines as the photocopying scheme. Other options seem to be available and maybe the Government will make it work better. There is some inevitability about cumbersome records having to be kept and I will be interested to see how the Government will overcome that, especially as it has indicated that this will be one means of enabling adequate payment to be made to copyright owners. There is one other matter in this statement which a great many people will be concerned about and will give very great attention to. It appears that the audiovisual review that has been taking place for some years is likely to propose a royalty on blank tapes as a method of overcoming the problem of home copying. I hope that that will be noted and that proper and lengthy public discussion will take place about that, because it is a matter which is fraught with very grave difficulties and large numbers of people will be quite worried about it. The Government has said that the departments are having consultations with copyright owners-naturally they will want something like this-and consumer organisations, which I suppose are the consumer groups the Government seems to so favour at the moment, as well as arts groups, blank tape manufacturers and importers, retail and user groups and educationalists who may be exempt from the levy. The Government would be wise to listen to the ordinary owners of audiovisual material and machines and to consider how the average person will react to the suggestion that a royalty will have to be paid on every blank tape purchased for the purpose of copying for home use, particularly bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America a year or two ago which said, as I understand it, that home copying was not a breach of copyright. I express no firm personal view on it; nor do I speak on behalf of the Opposition; but I think that the suggestions in this statement about the likelihood of a royalty being imposed by this Government on blank tapes is something of which the electorate at large should take note. Apart from that, the statement is promising. I only hope that the Government will move more quickly in implementing this very sensible scheme than it has done so far. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.32) —The Government's response to the report by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts of its inquiry, completed last year, into audio-visual copying by educational institutions canvasses a number of issues that seem to finally reach a resolution-further discussions and the possibility of a licensing procedure. I feel in many ways that the developments that have taken place in other areas may have caught up with and passed the discussion we are now having. In particular, I refer to the endeavours of the computer industry in dealing with the copyright of software. Up until recently all of the companies producing software programs particularly for home and business computers used electronic protection as a means of securing for themselves effective copyright. This required of multiple users or people who wished to copy at least a technical premium to overcome the electronic inhibitions built into the programs. What has happened in the last six months is very interesting. All the major software production companies producing computer programs have removed the electronic protection. They have done so under pressure from the market-place, which by and large has said that the home user is the only one who is being inhibited in the use of the product he has already bought whereas the sophisticated copier has no trouble breaking the electronic codes, copying material and passing it on to others. The computer industry has decided to go for the cheapest possible available product in the hope that people will buy it in preference to breaking the copyright laws by copying programs as much as possible. Copyright, under law, is still there. It is still an offence to copy, but effectively the mechanisms are to go for a reasonable market-place solution. What I think the Committee has opted for and what I think the Government has opted for is an old fashioned solution of further penalties and further red tape. I put the suggestion that this particular method will ultimately collapse. I imagine that the Committee-certainly in the submissions the Committee received-had evidence that a very large number of people engaged in education simply turn a blind eye to the copyright necessities. Of course, institutions which are funded by the Commonwealth do not necessarily have as wide a scope for ignoring the law as do smaller institutions, but I suggest that the vast bulk of educational institutions in Australia simply ignore the procedures laid down because they are too expensive, they are too bureaucratic, and they get in the way of the task they are trying to carry out. I would have thought that a recognition of the non-compliance might have led to something other than the cumbersome procedures of licensing suggested by the Committee and taken up by the Government. I admit that I am more drawn to the tax on tapes as a simple method, though again it seems to me that it would make impositions in the wrong area. The simplest way to deal with this matter is to give a general exemption to educational institutions to use the material and to have this acknowledged by the holders of copyright for the materials. After all, what is it that we are trying to use these materials for in educational institutions? It is for the benefit and the development of the country and for the development of the educational opportunities of children in schools and students in tertiary institutions. I would have thought that that was generally considered to be enough of a good for the community to put aside the legitimate claims of the owners of the copyright. If that is felt to be too harsh a punishment for the creative endeavours of people-I really do not believe it is-a method similar to that used for books could be employed. Lending rights in public libraries are dealt with by a mechanism that pays the copyright holder of a book a grant out of Consolidated Revenue. This seems to be a simpler suggestion. It is odd that the vast bulk of not only our public education institutions but also our private ones are supported in their recurrent funding by the taxpayer, yet they are expected to bear further costs when a very large amount of the Australian products-we will look at those first-are developed with taxpayers' money, whether it be through the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or through the Special Broadcasting Service, or even through commercial radio or television stations. A large proportion of this material is produced with the support of the taxpayer. Products developed outside the country and screened within the country yield a profit to the commercial companies screening those products. I would have thought that it would be a small price to pay to allow those items to be used within educational institutions. I am not suggesting that educational institutions be able to sell them, hire them out for public exhibition or use them for anything other than educational purposes. I am very much aware of the overlapping problems involved with this because in any particular production copyrights may be held not only by the person who produced the goods. For example, a person might own a song which is used within another copyright operation, or a person might own graphics which are embedded within another copyright operation, and so on. There is a complexity and a minefield of issues here. I am suggesting that the educational institutions are not equipped to be able to deal with these complexities. I would have thought that the small sacrifice that would be called for from those commercial owners or from publicly supported owners could be made in the interests of this country. It would be a small sacrifice that they would have to make. It would be a sacrifice shared across the board and a sacrifice well worth while. What is now being suggested, and what the Government in its response to the Committee's report is suggesting, is in fact more bureaucracy and more cost to be borne by the taxpayer. A simpler, more efficient and more effective solution might be gained by either a one-off payment relatively similar to that applicable to public lending rights or by no payment in the hope that all of those various groups would see it as at least one contribution to the general educational worth of the institutions in this country. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.40) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The list before me indicates that this paper was not available prior to tabling, which has considerable disadvantages. Nevertheless, I rise to speak to it because the Australian Safeguards Office is very important at this moment particularly following the events at Chernobyl and when in this Senate we have had debates upon the various aspects of restraining the proliferation of nuclear materials throughout the world and, above everything, a debate upon the nuclear non- proliferation pact. Our Safeguards Office has a very important job. Its job quite clearly is to ensure that the movement of all of our fissile material from Australia to end use is audited and that there is no use of any of that material for weapons purposes. Equally important is that the Safeguards Office is linked to the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has its headquarters in Vienna. The intention of this Parliament was that our representation in Vienna be strengthened and that our operation as part of the governing body of the International Atomic Energy Agency should be continued and if possible upgraded. So there is a great deal that this Senate and the Australian community need to have before them in this matter. There is the whole question of the ability of the International Atomic Energy Agency not only to supervise the movement of fissile material through safeguards offices and through other means but also to examine nuclear reactors and nuclear installations throughout the world to ensure that they are not weapons capable. Following Chernobyl there is now the question of whether the IAEA in the future might be able to have a wider role to inspect nuclear installations for safety factors and for possible dangers, and to report upon them. The most important step now inside the whole of the nuclear safeguards area is the achievement at an international level of some objective scrutiny of installations such as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island to see whether they conform to what would be recognised safety standards. It is equally important that there should be an upgrading of international knowledge and a passing on of international knowledge of the whole of this question of the safeguards of nuclear installations. We have learnt from Chernobyl the danger of radioactivity spreading not only to the community surrounding it, as in Kiev, but also across national borders over a large part of Central and Western Europe. Therefore what is happening as the result of Chernobyl is of major importance to us. I rose to speak without the benefit of this paper primarily to suggest to the Government that from time to time, and not just by way of annual reports or some report on Chernobyl, the Parliament should have before it progress reports on the steps being taken at the international level to upgrade inspection and safety factors so that in the future we can obviate the danger of reactor accidents and the spread of radioactivity. We should not just have to wait for annual reports before we can raise these matters. We now have the experience of international incidents; so I conclude my remarks by suggesting that from time to time we should have progress reports before us. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The 1985-86 annual report of the Australian Wheat Board gives an overview of its operations for the year, including detailed statistics and comparisons with the previous year. Australia was the only major wheat exporter of the world's five major wheat exporting countries to increase its exports during this period. Our sales amounted to 19.1 per cent of the total wheat trade. We have achieved this despite ruthless competition, particularly from America and the European Economic Community, in an environment of overproduction on the world market and in a situation of a low-valued Australian dollar. The Board was rationalised last year and I think its achievements are to be commended, particularly in the current economic climate. All too often today we find that wheat production is no longer viable for farmers, many of whom have been forced to abandon their farming properties. I take this opportunity to say that to some extent Australian banks have contributed to this farming crisis by some irresponsible lending practices. Many banks have lent large sums of money with profit on those loans in mind when in fact the people receiving the loans were often not in a financial position to service such debts, let alone have any hope of meeting repayments. Regrettably, the prudential guidelines of the past appear to be discarded today, but with their disappearance we have seen greater human suffering by many of the borrowers, particularly in the grain growing industry where farmers have seen their plants and properties confiscated under mortgage type arrangements. In 1985-86 wheat was responsible for exports worth $3,600m or 11 per cent of Australia's export revenue. This excellent performance was achieved with virtually no government support whatsoever. This is quite an impressive achievement, yet we find that high costs and inefficiencies, particularly in the handling, storage and transport of grain, have been of concern to producers for quite some time. Sales of grain overseas have been limited because of excessive distribution costs. Let me give a few examples in the remaining minutes. The distribution charges, expressed as a proportion of net returns, increased from 15 per cent to 22 per cent between 1979 and 1986, and are expected to reach 25 per cent by 1987. The international competitiveness of Australian industries-their ability to export or replace imports with little or no government support-is a matter of national interest. Recent events have shown only too clearly that improved international competitiveness is essential if the value of the Australian dollar is not to decline further and if Australian living standards are not to be significantly eroded. The establishment of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport was certainly well overdue and I hope that the Commission can make an early report. The world is still unaware that the devastating impact of the collapse of world commodity prices has forced our balance of payments into a precarious situation and has affected the value of the Australian dollar. Of course, we must not overlook the contribution of the Government's efforts in forcing down the value of the dollar. The size and the urgency of the current account imbalance should not be seen as justifying almost any means to increase exports and reduce imports; rather, they should be seen as providing an added incentive initially to remove many of those impediments to the flow of resources to export and import competing industries. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.50) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The question of the distribution of Federal road grants has been one of considerable concern to a lot of people in this country for a long time and, of course, that is what was behind the reference of the matter to this Committee of Inquiry into the Distribution of Federal Road Grants. I would say that, given the number of categories and the blurring of those categories that relate to the allocation of grants for urban arterial, rural arterial and local roads, the Committee has done a remarkably good job. However, one area in which it felt that it did not have the capacity to make extensive recommendations was the division of grants among local authorities. On page 42 of the report it made the point: The main contentions in submissions received from local government associations, from the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, some regional local authority bodies and from some individual local authorities were that local authorities should receive greater Commonwealth road grants, that competition for funds from their own resources is acute, and that the roads for which they are responsible are deteriorating. I do not think anybody who has travelled, for example, around the mid-north of South Australia, as both you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I do frequently, would disagree that those roads which local authorities are required to maintain are indeed deteriorating. The question was raised with the Committee as to whether there should be changes in the current formulae used in the allocation of Commonwealth grants for local roads, and organisations regularly submitted to the Committee that the division of responsibilities between local and State authorities was not appropriate any longer and that the characteristics of particular regions were not adequately reflected in the intrastate formulae. Indeed, from my discussions with some local authorities there is very real concern that State governments are in fact bleeding off money that ought to be going to the local authorities and are simply absorbing it in their highways department funds, or whatever the local State spending authority is. The report goes on to comment: As is evident throughout this report, the greater the detail attempted in assessments of road needs or cost disabilities, the more difficult the assessments become. Nobody is going to argue about that, but I think it is important, particularly with regard to a State such as South Australia, that the Commonwealth Government take into account when it allocates road funds, and in particular allocates road funds to local authorities, other actions by the Commonwealth that may have contributed to the increasing deterioration of local roads. In South Australia we have decisions regarding Australian National and the diminution of freight possibilities there, particularly for grain farmers on the west coast. With the limitation of access to Australian National for transporting wheat and other grains farmers have had to turn to road hauliers and, as a consequence, given the distances they have to travel from the west coast areas in South Australia to anywhere else, the local government authorities have a massive problem in keeping up with the road maintenance and development that is necessary. Those road hauliers, of course, use extremely large vehicles and they are chewing up the sides of the road to a quite considerable extent. They are placing a huge burden on those local government authorities through whose jurisdictions they pass. It seems very unfair indeed that the burden of making up that cost should fall on the property owners who have holdings in those areas, when in fact the major users of the roads are those coming from outside. South Australia has never had its fair share of road funding on any criteria, whether as a percentage of population, as a percentage of kilometres of road or as a percentage of road use. Taking into account the question of road safety and usage, I think it is time that the Federal Government made some sort of specific inquiry into the sorts of needs that local government has. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(3.55) —I want to say just a few brief words on the subject of road funding and on the report of the Inquiry into the Distribution of Federal Road Grants. As did Senator Haines, I congratulate the members of that inquiry on the work that they did as it is an excellent report. The report shows quite clearly-this is something that has been known by many people in the wider community, particularly those in non-metropolitan Australia, for some considerable time-that there has been a progressive and very serious decline in the allocation of funds for roads, particularly in the non-metropolitan areas of Australia, over the last two or three years. Despite the fact that the Hawke Government has from year to year provided major increases in the total level of spending on all items, it appears to have very considerably downgraded the priority given to road funding. As a result of that, in real terms the amount allocated for roads has declined considerably. For example, in 1983-84 road funding in 1980-81 dollars totalled $885m. By 1985-86 that amount had fallen to $813.6m. That is a considerable real fall, and it is probably an understatement because the price deflator used to extract that real figure understates the very significant increase in costs of the items that have gone into road construction and maintenance. There has not only been a decrease in the absolute level of real road funding, but there has also been a very considerable decrease in per capita road funding in Australia in recent years as a result of the shift in the expenditure priorities of this Government. For example, in 1983-84 per capita road funding in 1980-81 terms was $58.13, but by 1985-86 that had fallen by well over 10 per cent, to $52.25, and that fall has continued-as has the fall in absolute figures-in 1986-87. One has only to move around the country areas and provincial centres to realise what significant problems this is causing. It is causing problems in a variety of ways. It is causing problems for local governments, which are having great difficulty in maintaining their service and the standard of their roads. That is having a severe economic effect because in many of those areas roads are the economic life-blood of the communities there. For example, last week I was in Gippsland, which has a major requirement for very good roads because of the nature of industry down there, particularly the dairy industry with its big milk tenders. One could say the same of most other areas, certainly of my State of Victoria and I have no doubt that the same would apply in other States as well. The plea I want to make to the Government, in its consideration of this inquiry and in looking at its general expenditure proposals, is for heaven's sake to look at its priorities and stop spending millions of dollars on worthless projects, many examples of which we have seen in recent times-particularly the very recent example that has been brought to light by the Waste Watch Committee, of which I am very proud to be a member. That has highlighted the enormous extravagance and ridiculous spending that is going on in many areas of government activity, while at the same time the real priorities of Australia, such as roads, which are not just of economic importance but which also have a very real safety factor involved, have taken second place. It is about time that this Government had a major relook at its priorities and started to get them straight. If it does not start doing that very quickly we will have a continuing misallocation of the resources of this nation. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. A number of features of this report need to be explained more fully than they are in the report. The report is very short on detail of the types of projects to be engaged in by the fellows who have been awarded fellowships. I am not in a position at present to detail the projects that need elaboration. I simply feel that some questions should be asked of those responsible for the national research fellowships scheme, particularly how they came about their priority areas of national interest. I would be interested to know about a particular priority area of national interest-namely, biomedical technology. The Senate will appreciate that, under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Michael Tate, the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 undertook a substantial examination of this question. It may well be that the committee responsible for setting the priority areas of national interest made its decisions prior to the Select Committee reporting to the Parliament. Nevertheless, there are a number of other matters that I would like to pursue, particularly in respect of the individual awards. It is my intention to request, as I am entitled to do as a member of the Senate, the details from those responsible in this area and then I will be in a better position to comment on this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the hours of meeting of the Senate for the period 17 to 26 March 1987 be varied as follows: (a) during the first sitting week- Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m.; 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m.; 2 p.m.-7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m.; 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Friday, 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m.; 2 p.m.-3.45 p.m.; and (b) during the second sitting week- Monday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m.; 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m.; 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m.; 2 p.m.-7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in Item 2 of the 1st Report of the Standing Orders Committee for the 61st Session, the following proposed Standing Order 36aaa, relating to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, be agreed to: 36aaa. (1) (a) At the commencement of each Parliament, a Standing Committee of the Senate, to be known as the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, shall be appointed to report, in respect of the clauses of Bills introduced into the Senate, and in respect of Acts of the Parliament, whether such Bills or Acts, by express words or otherwise- (i) trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; (ii) make right, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers; (iii) make such rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions; (iv) inappropriately delegate legislative power; or (v) insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliament scrutiny. (b) The Committee, for the purpose of reporting upon the clauses of a Bill when the Bill has been introduced into the Senate, may consider any proposed law or other document or information available to it, notwithstanding that such proposed law, document or information has not been presented to the Senate. (2) The Committee shall have power to consider the minutes of Evidence and records of Standing Committees for the Scrutiny of Bills appointed during previous Sessions. (3) (a) Unless otherwise ordered, the Committee shall consist of six Senators, three being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and three being Senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or Independent Senators. (b) The nominations of the Opposition or any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators shall be determined by agreement between the Opposition and any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators, and, in the absence of agreement, duly notified to the President, the question as to the representation on the Committee shall be determined by the Senate. (4) The Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (5) The quorum of the Committee shall be three. (6) The Committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the Bills, Acts or other document or information which the committee is empowered to consider. The quorum of a sub-committee shall be two Senators. (7) The Committee shall elect a Government member as Chairman. (8) The Chairman may from time to time appoint a member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman and the member so appointed shall act as Chairman of the Committee at any time there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (9) In the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, shall have a casting vote. (10) The Committee or any sub-committee shall have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to meet and transact business in private session notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (11) The Committee shall be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. (12) The Committee shall be empowered to appoint with the approval of the President counsel to advise the Committee. (13) The Committee shall not meet while the Senate is actually sitting, unless by special order of the Senate. (14) The Committee shall have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit, and is expected to make regular reports as to the progress of the proceedings of the Committee. Senator Haines-Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask that my objection, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, to the passage of this motion be recorded. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —That will be done. Assent to the following Bills reported: Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1987 Plant Variety Rights Bill 1987 Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1987 Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1987 Australian Stock Exchange and National Guarantee Fund Bill 1987 Australian Protective Service Bill 1987 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Tate) read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(4.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- It is now some three years since the Minister for Transport introduced the legislation to provide the Australian National Railways Commission (AN) with a charter which gave AN the task of becoming a commercially oriented business operation. It is no secret that in the year before AN had recorded its highest ever loss of $106 million. The period since then has been a story of continued progress. Progress that reflects this Government's approach of creating an environment in which its business authorities can get on with the job of improving their performance. In real terms AN's call on the Federal Budget has been reduced by over 50% during this period. It is a record in which everyone associated with AN, the Chairman, Commissioners, AN management, Unions and AN work force can take pride. But we cannot stop there. Accordingly this Government is continuing to work with AN, and its staff to maintain that momentum which will lead AN to become a genuinely commercially viable Government railway. As part of this continuing drive for improved efficiency on 1 October 1986 the Minister for Transport announced a package of further initiatives including a new approach to AN's passenger services. The fact is that like virtually every railway in the world AN's passenger services are not currently commercially viable. However, with operational and marketing initiatives, their future prospects are improved. Whilst AN's performance is better than many of the other Australian rail systems, particularly in respect to long distance services, there is room to achieve greater efficiency. The Government and AN are embarking upon the demanding approach of upgrading these services rather than allowing them to drift into a state where they are beyond redemption. We have agreed with AN a set of increasing cost recovery targets to be achieved in respect of these passenger services. From a level of around 45% in 1984/85 AN now has the task of improving its passenger cost recovery level to a 60% target by 1988/89. AN has already launched a number of major initiatives to provide better, more efficient services to its customers. These include upgrading the Mount Gambier service with improved transit times and on-board service which has resulted in a 15% increase in patronage the launching in 1986 of a new Adelaide-Whyalla Budd car service which replaced the Adelaide-Port Pirie service. This service, known as the Iron Triangle Limited, is currently running at almost full capacity diversion of the Indian Pacific into Adelaide in 1986 without adding to the total journey time the launching of a new service, known as the Silver City Limited between Adelaide and Broken Hill in December 1986. AN considers that it should further extend the facilities it provides to its passengers to make train travel a far more enjoyable experience in itself. Accordingly it has refurbished rolling-stock to provide a special entertainment car, offering facilities such as video and sound booths video games for children tables for cards and chess a souvenir shop a hair salon a limited number of poker machines. To provide a clear legislative base for these activities it is necessary for the amendments contained in section 2 of this Bill to be enacted. AN has consulted both the South Australian and Northern Territory Governments on the proposal and both Governments have raised no objections. The other provision of the Bill will amend Section 70 of the Act to expand the powers under which Boards of Inquiry undertake investigations into the causes of accidents involving AN. Two Boards of Inquiry have been established under the Act. They have proven to be extremely valuable in having an independent body examine major accidents. It is considered that future inquiries would benefit by having wider powers to allow them to consider the broader causes of accidents. The proposed powers are similar to provisions governing accident enquiries under the Air Navigation Regulations. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Tate) read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(4.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes to amend the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Act 1980 to incorporate into that Act the tariff proposals tabled on 19 August 1986. As part of the 1986-87 Budget the proposals increased the export duty on uranium concentrate produced from the Alligator Rivers region in the Northern Territory from 11c to 80c per kilogram from 19 August 1986. The export duty imposed on uranium since 1980 is to offset the special costs of environmental monitoring and research activities by the Office of the Supervising Scientist associated with uranium mining operations in the Alligator Rivers region. The increase in the duty is being made to recover about 50 per cent of the costs. The Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region was created in recognition of the special need to protect the environment in that region, which includes Kakadu National Park, from the effects of uranium mining operations in both the short and the long term. The Kakadu National Park is a world heritage area, in which all Australian can take pride. The Government's continued commitment to the Office of the Supervising Scientist will ensure that this important area of Australia is fully protected from any possible effects of uranium mining operations. Clause 4 of the Bill provides an exemption from the increased levy in the standard transitional situations where uranium concentrate was loaded on to a vessel, or was part of a consignment which was commenced to be loaded, prior to the 19 August 1986 commencement of this Bill. Additionally, clause 4 specifically exempts from the increased levy about 800 short tons of uranium concentrate exported after 19 August 1986 under a contract between Queensland Mines Ltd and Electricite de France. This amount of uranium represents the quantity which the Commonwealth purchased from Queensland Mines Ltd after placing an embargo in June 1983 on Australian exports of uranium for end use in France. With the removal of the embargo in August last year Queensland Mines Ltd subsequently repurchased this uranium. However, the Government has decided that the uranium in question, which but for the embargo would have been exported before the levy increase proposed in clause 3 of the Bill, should not now be subject to the increased rate. Hence the exemption proposed in clause 4 (c) of the Bill. Financial Impact Statement The increased uranium export levy is expected to raise an additional $2.6m per year. The total levy will now recover approximately 50 per cent of the annual cost of the monitoring and research activities of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Tate) read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(4.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill makes some fine-tuning amendments to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. As many honourable members will no doubt know, this Act, which came into operation on 1 October 1980, codified and modernised the ancient prerogative writ remedies under which the lawfulness of government decision making could be challenged. The Act streamlined the procedures under which citizens could challenge, on legal grounds, administrative decisions and it did away with technicalities that applied under the old remedies. This innovative legislation has thus been in operation for some six years and it is now an appropriate time to be examining the Act to see where improvements can be made. A particular concern has been the use made of the Act in the course of administrative proceedings before some other tribunal in circumstances where the particular decision can be challenged at the conclusion of those administrative proceedings. Recourse to the Federal Court under the Act in the course of the administrative proceeding, rather than assisting in the despatch of business of that tribunal, can have quite the opposite effect. It can frustrate and delay the proper decision making processes of the tribunal. We are all aware of the events which surrounded the hearings of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal into the granting of a third commercial television licence for Perth in which, in the course of these proceedings, 16 cases were decided by the Federal Court under the Act. The effect of all this litigation was to delay the decision of the Tribunal on the third licence for some 12 months. The Bill will facilitate the efficient operation of administrative tribunals, authorities and persons by minimising the disruption caused by the making of applications under the Act in the course of proceedings. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that where an application for review is lodged in relation to a decision made by a tribunal, authority or person during those proceedings and a review of that decision is available at the conclusion of those proceedings, and it is desirable to avoid interference with those proceedings, the court shall refuse to grant the application unless the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the application to be granted. Another area of concern is where overlapping remedies are available. For example, in Public Service discipline matters, a person is able to appeal to a Public Service disciplinary appeal body, which can review the whole case. The person can also test the lawfulness but not the merits of the decision under the Act. The Act at present gives the Court a general discretion to refuse an application where there is another remedy available. The Government considers that some strengthening of this provision is desirable. The Bill does not remove any existing rights of review, but seeks to rationalise those instances where there exist overlapping remedies by encouraging applicants, where review is provided for under some other law, to avail themselves of that alternative review before seeking review under the Act. Review by means other than by recourse to the Act is often a more cost and time effective means of obtaining proper review of an administrative decision. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore amends section 10 of the Act by inserting a new paragraph 10 (2) (c). That paragraph provides that where an application for review is lodged with the Federal Court under the Act, and provision is made by any law other than the Act under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review of that decision otherwise than by a court, the court shall refuse to grant the application unless it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the Court to grant the application. This latter qualification recognises that there may be cases where the Court should hear the application, notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. The Bill also makes express provision for the Court to refuse to grant an application for review, or to stay an application where it considers it inappropriate to grant the application or continue the proceedings. This gives statutory expression to the Court's present wide discretion to refuse relief and in addition makes it clear that this discretion extends to enabling the Court to stay proceedings in appropriate cases. The Bill is intended to ensure these powers conferred on the Court are exercised in such a way that costs and delays are kept to a minimum and to this end the Bill provides that these powers be exercised at the earliest appropriate stage in the course of proceedings. Whilst the revenue implications of these proposals are not quantifiable, the measure should result in fewer hearings under the Act, and thus will have an impact on the Court's work load. By minimising the disruption to hearings it should also aid the efficiency of tribunals. This will result in revenue savings. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That, after consideration of Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, intervening business be postponed till after consideration of General Business, order of the day No. 304 (Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1986). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.13) —I move: (1) That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the briefing note on interest rates tabled in the Senate by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) on 25 February 1987, and that the Committee inquire into and report on the basis on which Dr R. G. Hawkins made his assessment of the outlook for home loan interest rates and why the Government has said that a document which was prepared for use in Question Time by a senior official with sound economic credentials and a detailed knowledge of the housing industry, and which was quoted in Question Time, does not represent the judgment of the Government. (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 1 April 1987. The effect of this motion is to require the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to examine the briefing note on interest rates tabled in the Senate by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, on 25 February 1987. This matter caused some comment at the time. It became the focus for some discussion on the prospects for interest rates in this country. The motion requires that the Committee inquire into and report on the basis on which Dr R. G. Hawkins made his assessment of the outlook for home loan interest rates. Secondly, it asks the Committee to assess why the Government has said that that document and the opinion that it contains, that there is no prospect of reduced housing interest rates this year and into the early part of 1988, does not represent the judgment of the Government. There are a good number of references to Senate committees and I suspect that when Senator Coates speaks after me he will tell us that he has a very busy Committee which already has too many references. Senator Coates —No, I have said that before. Senator CHANEY —Senator Coates says that he has already said that. The view of the Opposition is that this is an occasion on which we have the opportunity really to examine an issue which is of central importance to virtually every Australian. The paper which was tabled by Senator Ryan touches upon the issue of housing interest rates in particular. Of course, the broader interest rate regime is of interest not only to householders and home purchasers but also to every farmer, every small businessman and every investor in this country. If we look at the position of housing interest rates and the very high rates which have applied since this Government came into office-high rates which flow from the Government's deliberate high interest rate policies-we find developing a fairly appalling set of circumstances which are of very great importance to the Australian community not just economically but also socially. New dwelling commencements have fallen by 20 per cent over the past two years. Less and less housing funds are going into new dwellings; so fewer houses are being financed. Over the last two years new home loan interest rates have risen from 11 1/2 per cent to 15 1/2 per cent, and in the case of some bank loans up to 17 1/2 per cent. The private rental market situation is worsening. Vacancy rates are down and rents are increasing much faster than the rate of inflation. Over the past four years investor housing has declined from 25 per cent to 9 per cent of the market. Of course that reflects not just the interest rate regime but also the Government's capital gains and negative gearing policies. The number of people on public housing waiting lists is a fairly shocking statistic because the present Government has considerably increased the amount of money paid to the States for public housing. Yet under this Government, public housing waiting lists have climbed to over 160,000-up 60,000 on the figure four years ago. Mr Deputy President, I am sure that you and your colleagues would be bitterly disappointed that after very heavy subventions from the Commonwealth Treasury you find that your constituents who need public housing are waiting in longer queues than there were when you took office. Another damning social statistic is that alternative housing numbers continue to climb with over 400,000 people living in caravan parks and up to 100,000 Australians permanently or temporarily homeless. The Government has made a token gesture. It supports the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless with a contribution of about $600,000. Clearly, that is meaningless in terms of the problem that is faced. In Sydney, the city which seems to have very great problems in housing, renters are now paying an average of $267 a week for an unfurnished three-bedroom house. The shocking statistic is that that is an increase of 25 per cent on 1985 figures, and it is anticipated that there will be another 25 per cent rise over the next year. Those sorts of statistics are horrifying to people who are concerned about the welfare of Australians. In my State of Western Australia, which has a much lower rental regime-the Government Deputy Whip also comes from that State-the increase over the last 12 months has not been 25 per cent; it has been 29 per cent. Again, there is a devastatingly low occupancy rate. The rate has dropped from 2.4 per cent two years ago to one per cent now, and the tip is that rents will continue to rise. All of this is the context for the concern of the Opposition about the interest rate situation in Australia and housing interest rates in particular. The Opposition was delighted when, on questioning in the Senate, Senator Ryan said in February, just a few weeks ago, that the Government agreed. She said: At this stage it appears that any reductions in market rates that may appear over the course of 1987 will not be sufficiently sustained or will not result in a reduction of loan interest rates in 1987. Accordingly it does appear unlikely that reductions in housing loan interest rates will occur until the first half of 1988 at the earliest. Those words of the Minister bore out the very serious concerns of the Opposition-- Senator McIntosh —She was quoting. Senator CHANEY —I will come to that. That is the unadorned answer that was given by the Minister in this place. The Opposition believed that to be an accurate answer. Indeed, the Minister then tabled a paper which was the basis of her reply. That paper came from the Department of Housing. It is now a relatively celebrated document. It was prepared, we understand, by Dr R. G. Hawkins. It quoted what the Indicative Planning Council of this Government had as its view about housing interest rates. Senator McIntosh —Which it would forward to the Government. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry, I do not always catch Senator McIntosh's interjections but I think he said that that is what that Council was putting forward to the Government. We agree with that. The Council was suggesting, and the briefing note disclosed, that the Indicative Planning Council, an expert body under the chairmanship of Professor Fred Gruen, had the view which I quote from the document: . . . contain an assumption that any reductions in market rates that occur this year will not be sufficient to allow reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. It continued: . . . whilst reductions in housing rates may occur in the first half of 1988, it is unlikely that such reductions would have any significant impact on building activity until the second half of 1988. That caused a furore. The Government proceeded to assert that the report could not be relied on. Statements were made by a series of people. I wish to quote from a number of them. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, put the report down when he was interviewed on television on the 7.30 Report. He said that, after all, it was written on 13 February-before the announcement about the May economic statement. He referred to variations in the value of the dollar and said that the report was written by an officer who was not from a major economic department. On the Macquarie News report of 26 February, Senator Ryan said, rather lamely, that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was the Government's major spokesman. She said: . . . he is cautiously optimistic that interest rates and therefore housing interest rates will come down this year and of course he has said that quite recently, whereas the material in the brief was quite outdated and certainly took no account of our decision to have a May economic statement. By agreement, this is to be a restricted debate and time does not permit me to go into great detail on the matter. All I can say at this stage is that we have the extraordinary situation where the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and Senator Ryan are disavowing the report as not being the opinion of the Government, as being a report prepared without the benefit of knowledge that there was to be a May statement. Yet, when the housing Ministers of Australia met late last week, I think in Canberra, the Indicative Planning Council, in a document which has been published, reported to those housing Ministers in precisely the same terms as those contained in the briefing note of February. In other words, that expert group, after considering the fact that there was to be a May economic statement, still concludes that any relief in this calendar year is unlikely. I will quote from the report, which was partially quoted by Senator Walsh in Question Time today. Paragraph 1.4 states that there is considerable uncertainty in the outlook, that there are inevitably differences of view, and that a working assumption is needed. It goes on to say: In view of the size of the current account deficit and the consequent likelihood that monetary conditions will remain firm, the Council now believes that while market rates of interest may fall, they may not decline sufficiently to lead to a fall in housing interest rates much before the end of the forecast period. We are talking about June 1988 as the end of the forecast period. The important point to note, and one of the reasons we want a Senate committee examination of this, is that in paragraph 3.2 of the report, which was not quoted by Senator Walsh today, these words appear: The potential for reduction has been enhanced by the foreshadowed May Economic Statement. At this stage, the outcome of the May statement and the subsequent Premiers' Conference are not known. In the interim, the Council believes that it would be inappropriate to assume that lower market yields will lead to a decline in mortgage rates much before the end of the forecast period. Again, that is June 1988. In other words, this document, which was given by a government agency to the housing Ministers of Australia just last week, was prepared in the knowledge of the May statement and the prediction remains the prediction which was disclosed by Senator Ryan in the Senate in February. There has been some attempt to reduce the importance of the IPC. I do not believe that anyone in the Australian Labor Party would dare to attack its expertise or the expertise of its Chairman, Professor Fred Gruen. When the report was made available, Professor Gruen was quoted as saying: . . . a fall of at least 3 per cent in short term interest rates was needed before there was any chance of a drop in home loan rates. He went on to say: The report- that is, the report from which I have quoted- says that market rates may not fall sufficiently . . . I would put it more strongly than that- I am quoting Professor Fred Gruen, not Senator Fred Chaney- I don't at the moment see that market rates will come down sufficiently to reduce the current 15.5 per cent housing rate. What we seek in this motion and this reference, in the face of continuing tips from the Prime Minister that interest rates will ease-as recently as 9 March he repeated this belief-is for a Senate committee to be given an opportunity to examine the report and to make the inquiries which we have set out. We want it to inquire into and report on the basis on which Dr Hawkins made his assessment of the outlook for home loan interest rates, because we believe that such an inquiry will demonstrate that his assessment was made on the basis of proper inquiries and input from the normal sources of advice to government-that is, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Finance, the Reserve Bank of Australia, and so on. If that is the expert advice of the Government's advisers, we want to know what the foundation is for the rather more optimistic outlook which the Prime Minister holds and which he has insisted that his Minister, Senator Ryan, adopt, contrary to the view she expressed in Question Time in the Senate when initially she was prepared to quote from the briefing note prepared by the Department of Housing and Construction. Why is that of direct political relevance? It is because there is no matter more central to our economic recovery and to fixing the problems which are grinding down living standards in this country. I believe that if a Senate committee properly examines the questions we want to put before it there will be an additional burden on the Government to take the measures which are required to do something about the crippling high interest rate policy which this Government has imposed on Australia. I believe that the inquiry would probably establish that there is a fundamental need for the Government's May economic statement. In fact, it would give support to what the Government proposes, but I think that it would go on to give support to a very strong attack on expenditure in May if we are to have any chance of reducing the high interest rate burden which is doing so much damage to Australian families and businesses. We believe that the inquiry is central to getting at the facts which relate to the real economic problems that Australia faces. I commend the motion to the Senate. I hope that it will have support. I have reason to believe that it will have the support of the Australian Democrats. I believe that a proper inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations would present an opportunity for Senator Coates, who is the Chairman of the Committee and is present in the chamber, to make a genuine contribution to the welfare of Australia and his State, instead of engaging in idle politics, which is so often the curse of this place. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.28) —The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) will not be surprised to learn that the Government opposes this reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I believe that it would be a travesty of the parliamentary committee system if the matter had to be dealt with by that Committee, as Senator Chaney proposes. All the Opposition seems to want to do is to abuse the parliamentary committee system by engaging in what is simply a political point scoring exercise. It wants this reference as a vehicle for attacking a Minister and, I suppose, the Government as a whole. Perhaps one can understand that since the Liberal and National parties are in Opposition. I for one do not want to be part of such a farce which would bring the Committee into disrepute. It is not what we should use committees for; it is totally inappropriate. The Committee should be allowed to get on with the real references that are before it, including those which were initiated by the Opposition. Let us not waste a lot of time today with an extensive debate, especially on top of the wasting of more than three hours on this matter on the last sitting day. The Senate's program is way behind as it is, and such a debate would only make it worse. The Opposition wants to deal in this debate with a matter that we effectively dealt with 2 1/2 weeks ago. I know that on that occasion we spoke to a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. However, all the issues about which the Opposition is concerned were dealt with then. Senator Haines —They were snuck in. Senator COATES —Yes. People were pulled up occasionally, but I think that they felt they had dealt with them satisfactorily. If the Opposition wanted to have a debate in the Senate about housing interests rates or housing policy generally, why did it not raise a matter of public importance or move an urgency motion today? But no, being hopeless and bereft of ideas and policies, it uses this motion. This whole motion is nothing but a subterfuge. We certainly do not need an inquiry into interest rates. Apart from the fact that the Committee is already flat out dealing with existing references, the whole question of interest rates is a matter of opinion. Interest rates will ease and the easing of housing interest rates will follow. The only argument is exactly when that will happen. Of course, there is a range of views within the Indicative Planning Council and within government departments. As I said when this matter was debated last, members of the Opposition seemed to be suggesting that the Finance and Government Operations Committee hold an economic seminar so that it could receive opinions on interest rates from all the economists in the world. Those opinions, or the economists-whichever way one wants to do it-could be laid end to end. Senator Haines —That would be ghastly. Senator COATES —It is a ghastly thought. At the same time it is a waste of time. Senator Chaney raised the report of the Indicative Planning Council as some sort of triumph for the position that he took 2 1/2 weeks ago. Let me just quote all of paragraph 3.2 that he partly quoted himself. It states: Prospects for interest rates over the forecast period are difficult to assess. There is no argument about that. It continues: A working assumption is nevertheless necessary. That is a mere working assumption. It continues: Over the longer run, the level of nominal domestic interest rates reflects mainly inflation and overseas interest rates. In the short-run, movements in interest rates can be associated with changes in sentiment in foreign exchange markets and changing demands on capital markets. Restraint in labour costs, a lowering of inflation and steady improvement in the balance of payments would provide circumstances in which market interest rates would fall. The potential for reduction has been enhanced by the foreshadowed May Economic Statement. At this stage, the outcome of the May statement and the subsequent Premiers' Conference are not known. In the interim- this is an interim comment- the Council believes that it would be inappropriate to assume that lower market yields will lead to a decline in mortgage rates much before the end of the forecast period. That is the whole quotation. Honourable senators will note that the Indicative Planning Council refers to the inappropriateness of assuming that mortgage rates will decline much before the end of the forecast period. It does not say that there is no way that mortgage rates will fall before then. The implication is that it is quite possible that they will, but I cannot give a guarantee about that. To a large extent that is a matter of opinion. In fact, the Government's policies are meeting the conditions that the IPC has talked about. Last week there was a national wage case decision. Since depreciation has had its impact on the Australian economy the Government is forecasting that inflation will fall markedly. The latest statistics confirm that the current account deficit is trending down and the Government's fiscal policy remains firm. That stance will be reinforced by the May statement and the Premiers Conference. Of course, we all want interest rates to come down-the Government and the community do and I guess we would even acknowledge that the Opposition does. The whole idea of the Government's policies and its strategy is to ensure that they come down as soon as they possibly can. I just emphasise that the Indicative Planning Council does not claim to make a forecast on interest rates. Its prime responsibility is to forecast numbers of commencements in the coming financial year. The question of interest rates is just one input into the equation into which it is trying to make a forecast. I point out that the Indicative Planning Council certainly contains people from Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia, but there are 15 other representatives including banks, building societies, unions, building industries, academics and other government departments, including the Department which provided the paper that so excited Senator Chaney on the last sitting day. If the Senate wants to be reminded of this Government's housing achievements, I will do so briefly. Total funding for public housing by this Government in the current financial year is up 130 per cent compared to the Liberals' last year of office. This will lead to an increase of about 18,000 in the public rental housing stock. The first home owners scheme, which was first introduced by this Government in 1983, has resulted in 220,000 successful applicants. More than $1 billion has been committed Australia-wide under that scheme. When we gained office the housing industry was in bad shape. There had been only 105,000 commencements in 1982-83 and this increased to 152,000 commencements in 1984-85. Because of the fall off in demand, which we all know about, housing commencements decreased to 136,000 in 1985-86 and 122,000 commencements are predicted for the current year. It is still much more than members of the Opposition provided us with when they were in government. An upturn in that figure is predicted for 1987-88. It is perhaps not as great an upturn as we would have wished for, but it is an upturn nevertheless. There has been an increase of 70,000 in those employed in the housing and construction industry. Labor's record on home lending is far and away better than that of the previous Government. We have had an average of 305,000 home loans per year under Labor compared to 245,000 per year in the last three years of conservative government, involving a figure of $21.1 billion for Labor over three years compared to $11.7 billion for the Liberals over the same period. I emphasise that the 13.5 per cent ceiling on existing home loans is being maintained for existing home owners. I suggest that the Opposition's housing policy needs attention. Thankfully it will never be in a position to implement it. Let us examine what honourable senators opposite say they would like to do. They want to tear up the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement-that is, end Commonwealth grants to the States for public housing and any Commonwealth involvement in nationwide housing development. They want to do this in the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. The Opposition wants to forget about all those on the public housing waiting list and condemn them to remain forever either without proper shelter or subject to the excesses of the private rental market. I know that members of the Opposition say that general grants to the States will cover housing, but there is no suggestion in their policy that such grants would be increased by the equivalent amount or even at all. What a despicable policy that is. It reminds us, once again, of the way in which the conservatives have no care whatsoever for those in our community who are less well off. Yet they have the cheek to pursue this reference today. That is because their other concern is to stage political stunts. The motion to refer this matter to the Finance and Government Operations Committee should be rejected out of hand. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.38) —The motion before the Senate today has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). It states in part: That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the briefing note on interest rates tabled in the Senate by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) on 25 February 1987, and that the Committee inquire into and report on the basis on which Dr R. G. Hawkins made his assessment of the outlook for home loan interest rates and why the Government has said that a document which was prepared for use in Question Time by a senior official with sound economic credentials and a detailed knowledge of the housing industry, and which was quoted in Question Time, does not represent the judgment of the Government. The second part of the motion sets a reporting time limit on the Committee's inquiries of on or before 1 April 1987. As Senator Chaney indicated, the Australian Democrats will be supporting this reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, despite the fact that in our opinion there has been a great deal of cant and posturing involved in getting this reference on to the Notice Paper and hence adding to the work-load of the Committee. It is particularly regrettable that the reputation of Dr Hawkins has been dragged into this debate. He is a senior and experienced public servant who is unable to defend his reputation publicly, although attacks can be made and have been made publicly on his capacity, his seniority and hence on his reputation. Senior Sheil-Only by the Government. Senator HAINES —As Senator Sheil points out, they have been made by the Government, but it is even more reprehensible when people who seek advice from senior public servants then repudiate those public servants for giving them advice which in this case has been quoted in this place during Question Time. I can only say that we hope that this inquiry-which, I might add, we believe is being pursued by the Opposition for reasons which have nothing at all to do with concern for Dr Hawkins-will rebut any suggestions that he was ill-informed or inexpert in the opinions that he offered. We have absolutely no doubt that a sound economic argument can be made out that housing interest rates will not fall over the next 12 months. Senator Coates read great screeds of information to us a moment ago to indicate that that was the case. I suggest that, had the Opposition been really serious about the problem of rising interest rates and the difficulties faced by Australian families in getting hold of affordable home loans, it would have referred to the Committee the question of how best to get housing loan interest rates down, not simply the fact that Senator Ryan made an horrendous lapse by telling the truth in the Senate and quoting from the advice of Dr Hawkins to support her statement, which factually stated the case with regard to the likely fall or otherwise of housing interest rates. The Opposition is caught in something of a bind because the very policies which the Labor Government has implemented and which have led to high interest rates are the same sorts of policies in which the Opposition has in the past placed so much faith and still purports to support, namely, the deregulation of the financial sector and the floating of the Australian dollar. Between the two of those policies and the actions undertaken by the previous Fraser Government, we can be assured that inevitably housing interest rates in particular, but interest rates generally across the board, will remain high and hence out of the reach of most Australian families-the sorts of people in the community whom Senator Chaney regularly purports to support in this place. The Opposition, rather ironically, complains about interest rate increases at the same time as it opposes wage increases for the very people who are finding coping with increasing interest rates increasingly difficult. Those wage increases are essential to help Australian families keep pace with the increasing mortgage repayments they have been facing in recent times and the increasing mortgage repayments they faced in the last years of the Fraser Government. So, despite the bleating to the contrary from some members of the financial sector, the fact is that the combination of deregulation and the dollar float has allowed investors to invest off-shore at unprecedented rates, and in doing so speculate on the Australian dollar and deplete domestic lending capacity to such an extent that interest rates have inevitably risen as demand has risen. The essential fact of the matter is that interest rates are largely a function of Australia's overseas debt. They are unlikely to fall until our external debt and the Australian dollar have been stabilised. This is not likely to occur, as Dr Hawkins pointed out to Senator Ryan, who then pointed it out to the Senate, over the next 12 months. One reason it is not likely to occur is that Australian companies and, in particular, our large superannuation and life offices, continue to invest overseas at the rate of around $20m a day. It has got to the stage where something like $4 is invested off-shore for every $1 invested on-shore. That in itself is reason for considerable worry as this is happening at a time when our industrial sector, to say nothing of the home loan market, desperately needs access to funds. Another reason why interest rates are unlikely to fall is that overseas investors have moved away from long term direct investment in Australia and are now favouring short term profit taking from the share market as well as loans to Australian companies such as Elders IXL Ltd, the Bell group of companies and the Bond Corporation Ltd. Consequently, this country is now on a treadmill, with our interest payments on borrowings equalling half our external debt. In order to meet those interest payments we have to borrow even more money, which we attract by means of high interest rates. So we are caught up in a vicious circle which nobody in government appears to be prepared to break. The Finance and Government Operations Committee ought to be inquiring not into the storm in the teacup which Senator Chaney is bent on brewing, but into the more substantive questions of, firstly, why interest rates are so high; secondly, what needs to be done to bring down these interest rates; and, thirdly, the means of achieving an immediate increase in affordable housing loans. Neither the Government nor the Opposition would be in favour of an inquiry into the first two matters as the answer would almost certainly be that deregulation of the financial system is a major cause of the high interest rates currently crippling the Australian housing industry. As for a means of achieving an immediate increase in affordable housing loans, no increase is possible without further government regulation of the financial sector. This is something we have been pushing for since we came into this place in any numbers in 1981. One of the first measures we took when we came here was to introduce a private member's Bill which would have given home loan lending institutions a reserve of money to lend at reasonable interest rates. We suggested then that the Fraser Government consider allowing a tax exemption for money deposited at 10 per cent or less in the sorts of institutions that lend for housing-that is, savings banks and building societies-so that people got a respectable return because they did not have tax deducted from the interest they had received, and the banks had a set amount of money for lending at reasonable rates for home loans. The second thing the Government could do if it wished to is move this country in line with the situation that applies in the United Kingdom and the United States-that is, give to borrowers of home loans the sort of tax concession that is currently given to business borrowers. In both the United Kingdom and the United States it is possible for people with a mortgage to deduct all or part of the interest repayment from their tax. That is precisely what business borrowers do. To hear arguments from the banks that it is unfair to have the business sector, which borrows at 18 or 19 per cent, subsidising home loan borrowers at 13 1/2, 14 1/2 or 15 1/2 per cent, is faintly ludicrous, given that those business borrowers can write off interest rates against tax and are therefore paying effectively 9 per cent or 9 1/2 per cent, while the average family is forced to pay the whole 13 1/2 or 15 1/2 per cent, or whatever is being charged. The third thing the Government could do is to require superannuation funds to provide a set percentage-20 or 30 per cent-of their new contributions for low cost housing loans. If they did that, up to $1 billion of affordable housing loans could be immediately made available. After all, they currently have money invested in fixed interest deposits at 12.8 per cent on which they are not paying tax. I would have thought that lending money for housing at 13 1/2 per cent would improve the returns for their shareholders. We made that suggestion last week and it brought immediate howls of protest, not unsurprisingly, from the superannuation funds. Mr Mayer, the Chairman of the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, said that such a requirement would restrict the investment performance of the superannuation funds. In an article in the Melbourne Sun of 16 March he is quoted as follows: ``One of the key successes of this Government is the deregulation of financial markets because that is better for the economy in the long-term,'' he said. ``It does not make sense to regulate the superannuation industry in this way-where do you stop? Once you have this, you can start instructing them to do something else. ``I must also query why one section of the population-those saving for superannuation-must subsidise another section-those buying homes. ``There is a need to cut interest on housing loans but we should look at the economic fundamentals. What is wrong is that we were owing $54 billion in 1985 and owe $101 billion currently. The article went on to say: Mr Mayer, who is chairman of the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, said it was unfair to use as an example the fund quoted by Senator Haines, which had a low return and was, until recently, heavily regulated. He said most superannuation funds returned well over 20 per cent and some of National Mutual's well over 30 per cent. Clearly, a return of 13 1/2 per cent from housing loans is below the return those funds are receiving from their overseas investments, but it is not below the return they are receiving from the money they have currently in fixed interest investments. Furthermore, I would have thought that it is not the aim of government policy merely to maximise the income of superannuation funds. These funds receive the benefit of paying no tax on their earnings. It is reasonable for the Government to require in return that the income they receive by means of this tax-free status is used for the benefit of the Australian economy. Provided that the funds can earn sufficient income to provide a secure retirement income for their contributors, there is no reason on earth why they should not be subjected to government regulations regarding where those funds are invested. One needs to ask why business should feel that it is the only sector which should be able to receive government assistance with no strings attached. We are supporting this reference to the Finance and Government Operations Committee in the hope that, if it ever gets around to dealing with it-given the current references before it and at least one proposed reference that is likely to come before the Senate in the next day or two-it may provide the Senate, the Government and the Australian people with some information relating to the sorts of issues that I raised earlier, that is, why rates are so high, how they can be brought down, and what options there are to make home loans affordable. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.54) —This motion relates to a reference for the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on assessing the status and authority of a most important document and reporting back to the Senate on or before 1 April 1987. Senator Coates referred to the document and its author. In fact, the matter under discussion is the basis on which housing loan interest rates can be forecast and how a policy can be developed from it. Having seen the document referred to in the Senate, we need to look at how it is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and/or the Treasurer (Mr Keating) can, on reading the same document from the same source, come up with different conclusions from the author or the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who represents the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) in the Senate. I find it quite incredible. That is why we need to know whether the documents that come before the policy-mak- ing decisions of the Government can or cannot be relied upon. It is rather unwise of the Government to keep on raising the question of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, because undoubtedly this is the worst year I can remember as far as people seeking housing is concerned. As I was listening, or not listening, to a former speaker, I was contemplating the fact that I have spent about 40 years involved in housing in one form or another and in that 40 years this is the worst year for people seeking housing. The housing position is not just a mess and is not just serious; it is absolutely disastrous. The document referred to by Senator Ryan, which caused this debate, was authorised by Dr Hawkins. Dr Hawkins is a very senior and highly qualified economist. He is the First Assistant Secretary of the Industry Policy Division in the Department of Housing and Construction and he represents that body on the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry. The Indicative Planning Council is the major advisory body for the Government on all matters to do with housing planning. The Council comprises a selection of eminent representatives of housing associated organisations, government departments and unions. Those organisations include the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Finance Conference, the Australian Bankers Association, the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the Housing Industry Association, the Urban Development Institute of Australia and the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies. There are government representatives from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Reserve Bank of Australia, Treasury and the Department of Housing and Construction, and a representative from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This body surely must have the regard of everybody who wants to know anything about housing-or perhaps everybody except the Government. I find it quite extraordinary that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer would not take as much notice of the views put to that body or the Housing Ministers Council as anybody else would. Professor Gruen is well known in the community. He is the Chairman of the Indicative Planning Council and is a man of very high regard and qualifications. Although, whether it is the Indicative Planning Council or anybody else, the advice given is probably never 100 per cent. I do not expect that it should be. But it is based on the best projections that the Indicative Planning Council can make or gather. As with any statistics-the history of the Indicative Planning Council would bear this out-the projections of highs are never really high enough and the lows never go low enough. They are difficult to determine and I sympathise with the experts, who can only do the best they can with the best information and the best interpretation of that information that is possible. This comes back to the Government. Why does the Government choose not to accept the advice or find out whether other advice is available? That is what we are trying to establish. To rubbish the comments of Dr Hawkins as was done by members of the Government, or even to brush them off as irrelevant, just is not on under these circumstances. By any standards housing is in a mess. There has been a huge fall-off in construction-something like 20 per cent. Housing rental applications in the life of this Government have risen 60 per cent-from 100,000 to 160,000. Interest rates in the last 18 months or so have gone from 11 1/2 per cent to an average of 15 1/2 per cent, and in many cases to considerably more than that. There has been a big sell-off and non-replacement of private rental housing. There have been high rises in rents. I noticed in today's paper that three-bedroom houses in Sydney cost $247 a week to rent. There has been a 70 per cent rise in arrears notifications of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporations insured borrowers as at the last count. What has the Government done? It has introduced a capital gains tax and it has eliminated negative gearing. Private rental housing usually returns the owners 4 to 6 per cent plus a bit of capital gain if they are lucky. Without that only two things can happen: The shortage will drive the rents up, and the owners will endeavour to sell what they can to get out of it and get their money into something that might show them a return. There have been no significant additions to the stock. The Indicative Planning Council says clearly that interest rates cannot come down, certainly not in the foreseeable future. As Senator Chaney pointed out, Professor Gruen went further than that and made other comments as to the unlikelihood of there being any improvement. Why is it that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer give information to the contrary? Clearly this could be regarded as a case of misleading home owners or would-be home owners. If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are so sure that they can predict falls in interest rates during 1987, where do they get that information from? Where is this information that is so much better than that which the Indicative Planning Council gets? The Council has the resources of Treasury, the Reserve Bank of Australia and others available to it. The Government has a total disregard for home ownership. We now have people waiting outside newsagencies overnight so that they can get the first paper in the morning to see which flats are for rent. What is the Government doing about that? It is keeping interest rates up to four or five times those of similar nations. We cannot keep bearing this kind of penalty. I query the disposable income projections of the Indicative Planning Council, which I regret may only make things worse. From my experience I believe that huge rises in rents and/or repayments leave most young home owners with absolutely no disposable income. One in five of all renting households in Australia are now paying over 35 per cent of their gross weekly income and often as much as 55 to 60 per cent of their net incomes in rent. How can they ever buy a house? The only thing that the Government has done in this regard, having seen these people pay an extra $60 from their salaries or $250 a month, is give them an offset of $10 a week and tax them $4 out of that. Let us ask the Master Builders Federation of Australia or the Housing Industry Association, or the Real Estate Institute of Australia how things are. Ask the Commonwealth driver who told me that his repayments rose by over $200 per month to $795 per month from the time he signed his mortgage to the time his house was completed. Ask him about the 16.74 per cent interest that he is paying. It was 17.5 per cent but he created such a furore that it was reduced to 16.74 per cent. Ask his wife about the 20 hours a week overtime that he has to work to meet it. Ask the Tasmanians whose repayments overall rose by 35 per cent in the last 12 months. Ask the HLIC about its notifications of arrears. Ask the Australian Bureau of Statistics about the figures that are coming in to it. Ask the economists-they will tell us the answer too. The reasons they will give will be a debt of $100 billion, an inflation rate of 10 per cent, the fiddled floating dollar, the crippling rates of taxation, the ghastly overspending of the public sector, and interest rates which are more than double those of our trading competitors. Ask the 400,000 caravan dwellers. Ask the 40,000 people who thought that they could get into houses this year and who found that they could not afford it. When will the Government get something on the line to get something going? If it is not going to, it should get out and make room for us. To bribe the banks with $145m is all it can do-a $145m subsidy or bribe to the banks, of all people-to cover its own declared policy of high interest rates. I call on the Government to tell us all about its housing program so that I can tell the home owners and would-be home owners around Australia. In this regard I ask five questions. First, how many houses will be built throughout Australia in the next 12 months? Secondly, what will the interest rates on mortgage loans be? Thirdly, what availability will there be for non-government rental property, and at what price? Fourthly, what help will home owners who are in trouble because of skyrocketing repayments get? Fifthly, when will inflation rates come to those of our competitors? The slump is absolutely disastrous. A slump of 20 per cent takes much correcting. The loss of homes and the loss of hope, the loss of jobs and the loss of skills take much correcting. Even government rental housing will not solve the problem. Since the Government came to office housing rental applications have risen, as Senator Chaney mentioned earlier. The figure is now over 160,000 and it is still rising. How much further will the Government let this go or will it drive it up before it decides to do something about recognising the extent of the disaster in housing? In spite of a reasonably optimistic approach to both disposable income and a rise in the gross domestic product, the chances of meeting 120,000 new homes is very questionable. And so it goes on. We ask that the Senate have an opportunity to make an assessment of the document which was produced in the Senate, and from which the Government gets assistance in the preparation of policies and statements. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(5.08) —We have heard another long debate on housing loan interest rates today. We heard a similar debate on 26 February. I acknowledge the importance of the issue and I cannot complain about its being debated. Asked whether it should be the subject for another matter of public importance, one would have to say: `Why not?'. It is an important issue. But that does not answer the question why it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I have not come across a more stupid reference in a long time, and there have been some pretty stupid ones of late. If one examines the wording of this motion one will notice the little sting in the tail in paragraph (2), which states: That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 1 April 1987. That certainly suggests to me that this motion is no more than a joke. No one in the Opposition, or in the Australian Democrats, can expect the Committee to complete the reference by that date or even to have attempted to look at it by that date. It simply is not on. I served on that Committee in the first term of the Hawke Government. It is obviously an interesting Committee but it is one that has a very heavy work load. When I was on it I recall that we looked at statutory authorities, the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and its performance, we looked at the financial arrangements between the Northern Territory Government and the Federal Government-all important facets of government operations. But never before have we attempted to make the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations a macroeconomic committee. Never before have we said to it: `Here is a reference on the future of the country, the direction of the economy. Here are the problems, you solve them'. If one listens to Senator Archer the reference would be the direction of the world economy. This Committee obviously is not set up to do that. With the work load it has with the things it is already examining how does anyone seriously expect the Committee in two weeks, by 1 April 1987, even with Senator Coates's ability and capacity as Chairman, to get through its work load? It is obviously a stunt. It can be nothing else. In listening to the speeches that is confirmed for us. We just had Senator Archer read a long speech on housing loan interest rates. He asked us lots of questions. It was all very interesting but it had nothing to do with a reference to this Committee. He was just taking another opportunity to debate the issue. Sooner or later the Senate has to take a serious look at these committees, because if we continue to make stupid references of this kind we will tie up too many senators in useless and extravagant exercises. This Committee is not equipped to do it, it does not have the staff to do it, and it cannot do it. Sooner or later we have to work out just how much taxpayers' money we want to waste on these sorts of stunts before we realise that we cannot get results from the kinds of inquiries that are being proposed. There are great and important issues that can be referred to Senate committees but this issue is totally inappropriate and stupid. If one looks at the debate today, one has to acknowledge that no one spoke about the capacity of the Committee to examine anything. Let us look at the document from Dr Hawkins that we are referring to. It does not represent Government policy, but honourable senators opposite want to find out all about the document and about the Government's attitude to it. I can save them the time and expense of having an inquiry; the Government rejects Dr Hawkins's opinion for all the reasons it has given. Honourable senators opposite do not need to have Senator Coates and his colleagues inquire at length into it. I can give them the answer now. Of course, the answer was given on 26 February and no doubt we will be forced to give it again and again over the next few weeks as the issue is continually raised. As for Dr Hawkins, I have not attacked him, nor would I seek to. I would have thought that it was simply a matter of looking at what information was in his possession at the time. On 13 February when he prepared the document he could not possibly have known that the Government was about to introduce a May economic statement. I did not know that and, Mr Deputy President, presumably at the time you did not know that. I do not think anyone knew that; so Dr Hawkins could not have known that. Slashing government spending, and the Government's acknowledgment that more government expenditure has to be cut, I think has had a tremendous effect on the dollar, which in turn will have a tremendous effect on interest rates. One wonders how Dr Hawkins could have been in possession of that knowledge. He could not have foreseen that with that announcement there would be such a dramatic recovery in such a short time for the Australian dollar. As I left the office to come down to the chamber the value of the dollar had almost hit US69c. It has been going up a great deal today and again that will have an effect on housing loan interest rates. These are things that Dr Hawkins, with whatever qualifications he has got, with all the best will in the world and with all the ability and capacity he may have, could not possibly have known. I can understand why the Opposition would want to call on this debate. It is quite sensible for it to do so because it has a lot to divert attention from. It is fascinating to see four National Party of Australia senators in the chamber. I saw Senator Boswell come in and give Senator Collard his instructions a few minutes ago, but what has happened to the Liberal Party of Australia senators? The Nationals are all in here hiding from the Press. They are not game to go outside into King's Hall because they will get ambushed by the journalists. The Liberals are all running around trying to work out who their next leader will be. That is why this debate has been called on today-simply to divert attention away from all of those problems. The Opposition has just so many problems. I can understand why the Nationals are hiding in here and particularly why Senator Collard is hiding in here-he had that embarrassment yesterday of having to back down. If I were Senator Collard I would be in here too. There is now a Liberal member in the chamber. Senator Archer has come back to us; so I am glad to see one Liberal present. All the rest are out there counting heads. They are working out who their leader will be next week. In Senator Boswell's case he has to work out which party he will be in next week. Opposition senators have reasons to call on this debate, and I can understand those reasons. If Senator Collard follows me in this debate I hope he will explain what happened yesterday. Going back to Dr Hawkins, one should look too at the information that he could not have had in mind. He could not have known that the trade figures which came out this morning would come in at $750m instead of the $1.3 billion of last month, that once again the market would have confidence and that once again that would be another impetus for interest rates to come down. All these developments I have mentioned must have a positive effect on interest rates, and on the collapse of the coalition. It looks more and more likely that the Hawke Government will be re-elected, the effect of which is to send the value of the dollar up and to send interest rates down. Quite obviously these are things that Dr Hawkins could not have known. I am not critical of him writing the opinion he wrote on 13 February; it is just pretty obvious that it could not happen now. I am sure that if Dr Hawkins wrote his opinion now he would have a different opinion. Senator Robert Ray —Do you think his cold feet might have been warmed up? Senator RICHARDSON —I have heard of that sort of thing happening lately, and it is possible. It is pretty clear that Dr Hawkins and others who had those views back in February will have to change them now because once again the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have been proved right. Their policies have been proved right. Housing interest rates will take the right direction throughout the rest of this year, and it is as well that they should. We will all find out who Senator Archer is going to vote for, but we want to know from Senator Chaney and Senator Archer just how they think they are going to get unanimity of Committee members on interest rates. If this Committee of Senator Coates can come up with a view any different from that of the chambers of parliament which have debated it for the last 90 years, I would have to say that I will be surprised. I suspect that the same sort of politicking will go on there as goes on everywhere else in the game that we play. For all of those reasons I would have thought that we would all have to admit that all we have done today is give an extra excuse to have a debate on interest rates. If we are going to have a debate on interest rates, the first thing one has to acknowledge is that one cannot nominate a precise date on which interest rates will fall. I certainly cannot. In looking at the developments I have just outlined to the Senate, the Government is very confident that during the course of this year we will see some reduction in interest rates. Our policies and strategies are in place. On many occasions the Government, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have stated that those strategies will work to bring about a recovery and that as we wait for them it is expected that interest rates will fall. The Prime Minister quoted a couple of months ago that he was cautiously optimistic about it. I can provide to Senator Coates and to the Committee all of the statements of the Prime Minister and of the Treasurer. If I could find quotes from Senator Archer, I would even provide them. But the reality is that at the end of the day-at the end of the examination by the Committee-the Senate will be advanced nowhere, the Government will be advanced nowhere and the only thing that will have been achieved will be the halting of the Committee's deliberations and the stopping of it finishing the reports that Senator Coates and his colleagues have been working on for months. It is just not worth while. The Senate and its members, no matter what party they belong to, have to understand that if the committee system is to function properly numbers cannot be used in this chamber to bring about farcical situations such as I can unfortunately see happening today. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.17) —Mr Deputy President-- Senator Robert Ray —Have you got shoes on? Senator COLLARD —Yes. I am even marketing a line of thermal footwear. I see quite a future in it. As one who spent many years on the footplates of steam locomotives, I know the value of them and their ability to withstand hot and cold. I am quite sure that if I accepted the offer of Senator Richardson opposite to talk about my version of what happened yesterday, the day before or whatever, I would have a far bigger gallery than I have now. Unfortunately, contrary to what the members of the Government might think, there are more urgent things out there exercising the minds of the people of Australia. Not the least of those is interest rates. Senator Richardson found it very hard to work out why we are discussing the motion put down by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney). We all know the history of the document that Senator Ryan quite rightly quoted from. It was an honest document and an honest assessment by one of the senior public servants-I think he is even a First Assistant Secretary-in the Administration. What we are on about is why this Government has said that this document does not represent its particular judgment when, as late as last week, I believe there was a conference which used this document as a basis for discussion. It is quite easy and quite right for people out in the community to get very emotional about tax, which raises its head all the time, because every week in their pay they see the tax going out. When a government spends big it also taxes big. This is a government of all sorts of records-it is the biggest spending government in peace time history and thus it is the biggest taxing government in peace time history. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) particularly, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to a lesser extent, almost since they got into power in 1983, have said that in a couple of months time interest rates would come down. I will not give all those quotes again. As alluded to by Senator Richardson, I gave them in a previous debate. They are there on the record. What have we now? We have the Government once again saying that interest rates are going to come down shortly. As I have said, tax is an emotional issue out there. But if this economy is to get going again and if the business and farming communities that are really the engine-room of this society are to have the ability to invest, to manufacture more and to create more employment, things such as interest rates and inflation have to be addressed first. The incomes of most people in rural industry are so low that they are not paying tax anyway, but they are sure getting beaten around the head by the interest rates. Senator Button —What would you do, Senator? Would you lower interest rates? Senator COLLARD —It is in Senator Button's hands. He is part of the Government that has blown out the Budget deficit. He is part of the Government that has propped up the dollar with high interest rates. We therefore see the tragedy facing business men and women, and farmers who quite legitimately sat down a few years ago and budgeted with their accountants. They have worked hard; they have great expertise, but through no reasons other than high interest rates they are not only walking off their farms but also being carried off them. In this incident a senior public servant gave an honest assessment of how he saw the situation so far as interest rates are concerned. No doubt what he said will turn out to be the truth. It is quite indicative of this Government that it tried to put this man down. It is almost going back to the Middle Ages, when the messenger was shot. Anybody who brings bad news is done away with. If we go into the traditions of this chamber and of the other place, we know that the position of Speaker was never a popular one because he always had to be the person to give the bad news to the King, thus his longevity was quite often in question. So we had the traditional spectre of people having to drag the incumbent to the Chair when he was first elected. We have a similar situation here of the messenger being shot. A senior public servant is doing his job, giving an honest assessment, and is being denigrated in this chamber for doing so. If we are going to keep shooting the messengers-and there will be many more messages of bad news if this Government keeps going down the track it is going down-we will have what could almost be described as a munitions led recovery. As I have said, between December 1984 and February 1987 prime business rates have risen from 13.5 per cent to 18.5 per cent, an increase of 5 per cent. Small overdraft interest rates have risen from 14.5 per cent to 20.5 per cent, an increase of 6 per cent. How can one possibly budget for interest rate increases of that magnitude? For comparison let us look at the prime interest rates of other countries. From December 1984 to February 1987 prime interest rates in the United States of America went from 11.8 per cent down to 7.5 per cent, a change of minus 4.3 per cent. The prime rate for Japan-another of our major trading partners-went from 5.5 per cent down to 3.8 per cent, a change of minus 1.7 per cent. The rate in France for the same period went from 12 per cent down to 9.5 per cent, a change of minus 2.5 per cent. In Canada it went from 12.5 per cent down to 9.3 per cent, a change of minus 3.2 per cent. That is a selection of our major trading partners who have experienced a downward trend in their prime interest rates. No wonder we are being out-manoeuvred, out-pointed, out-sold and out-everything else in international trade when our farmers and businessmen have to compete with increases of the magnitude of 5 to 6 per cent or against the decreases of our trading partners. Most people these days are into Bankcard. The last time I took part in this debate I think I mentioned the many people who are just getting over their Christmas spending-spending on presents for families and friends and on the extra food they bought to entertain relatives. A lot of that money came from Bankcard. Now that the repayments are due those people are finding out what sorts of repayments they are having to make. The interest rates for Bankcard over a similar period, from December 1984 to February 1987, have risen from 18 per cent to 22.5 per cent, an increase of 4.5 per cent. So not only are the business people and the farmers, even though they are the engine-room of society, being denied every opportunity to lead this country out of the recession in which it finds itself, but also the ordinary men and women of Australia are being hurt. Housing loan interest rates have already been mentioned. The great Australian dream of owning a house has become the great Australian nightmare. The state of the industry is reflected in the drop in the number of housing starts, which is on the record. But what is probably worse, what is the big tragedy, is the number of repossessions going on. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Collard, I have been allowing you some latitude, but you should bring your remarks back to the subject of the motion. Senator COLLARD —I rather suspect that I mentioned housing loan interest rates. I recall that this whole document is really about interest rates, and particularly housing interest rates. Yet this Government says that the document put down by this senior public servant does not reflect the judgment of the Government. So we see that the great Australian dream has become the great Australian nightmare. As I have already indicated, the worst thing is the repossessions. People have scrimped and saved, forgone having a family, put together a deposit and decided that they could meet the repayments, only to find that they cannot now do that. Houses are being repossessed and sold on a down market and all that saving has gone down the tube. From March 1983, when this Government came to power, to September 1986 average home loan repayments have increased by various amounts in various States. In New South Wales over that period it increased by $206 per month. In Victoria it increased by $204; in Queensland by $199; in Western Australia by $97; in South Australia by $207; in Tasmania by $175; and in the Australian Capital Territory by $177-an average increased repayment of $169 per month. No wonder a man of the calibre of Dr Hawkins saw fit to put down on paper his concerns and where he saw interest rates going. No wonder this Government is trying to duck every possibility of having this subject aired before one of the Senate's standing committees. As I indicated by way of response earlier, the whole matter has been brought about by Government ineptitude in handling the economy, Government expenditure and the propping up of the Australian dollar. I, and indeed my colleagues on this side, believe that this subject should be referred to a standing committee so that it can be well and truly aired, then all of those who are interested will have the chance to put forward their points of view. I support the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 7 October 1986, on motion by The President: That the Bill be now read a second time. The PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators I present the reasons for judgment of Mr Justice Carruthers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the matter of parliamentary privilege in Regina v. Jackson. The judgment on this matter was given last year but the reasons have just been published. The reasons are relevant to a consideration of the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1986, introduced by my predecessor. Mr Justice Carruthers, in dealing with the question of whether a member's parliamentary statements may be used as evidence in relation to an alleged offence by the member, has adhered to the traditional interpretation of freedom of speech in Parliament and has rejected the reasoning of Mr Justice Hunt in Regina v. Murphy. There are now, therefore, contradictory judgments by the same court in relation to freedom of speech in Parliament. I urge senators to read the reasons in connection with their consideration of the Bill. Copies are available from the Records Office. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Without wishing to speak to the Parliamentary Privileges Bill at this stage-I will aim to close the debate on behalf of the previous President, Senator Douglas McClelland, who moved for the second reading of this Bill-I now table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the draft resolutions of the Senate to carry out those recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that do not require legislation, together with an explanatory memorandum on the draft resolutions. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE 1. Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses That, in their dealings with witnesses, all committees of the Senate shall observe the following procedures: (1) A witness shall be invited to attend a committee meeting to give evidence. A witness shall be summoned to appear only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant the issue of a summons. (2) Where a committee desires that a witness produce documents relevant to the committee's inquiry, the witness shall be invited to do so, and an order that documents be produced shall be made only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant such an order. (3) A witness shall be given reasonable notice of a meeting at which the witness is to appear, and shall be supplied with a copy of the committee's order of reference, a statement of the matters expected to be dealt with during the witness's appearance, and a copy of these procedures. Where appropriate a witness shall be supplied with a transcript of relevant evidence already taken. (4) A witness shall be given opportunity to make a submission in writing before appearing to give oral evidence. (5) Where appropriate, reasonable opportunity shall be given for a witness to raise any matters of concern to the witness relating to the witness's submission or the evidence the witness is to give before the witness appears at a meeting. (6) A witness shall be given reasonable access to any documents that the witness has produced to a committee. (7) A witness shall be offered, before giving evidence, the opportunity to make application, before or during the hearing of the witness's evidence, for any or all of the witness's evidence to be heard in private session, and shall be invited to give reasons for any such application. If the application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. (8) Before giving any evidence in private session a witness shall be informed whether it is the intention of the committee to publish or present to the Senate all or part of that evidence, that it is within the power of the committee to do so, and that the Senate has the authority to order the production and publication of undisclosed evidence. (9) A chairman of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee's inquiry and that the information sought by those questions is necessary for the purpose of that inquiry. Where a member of a committee requests discussion of a ruling of the chairman on this matter, the committee shall deliberate in private session and determine whether any question which is the subject of the ruling is to be permitted. (10) Where a witness objects to answering any question put to the witness on any ground, including the ground that the question is not relevant or that the answer may incriminate the witness, the witness shall be invited to state the ground upon which objection to answering the question is taken. Unless the committee determines immediately that the question should not be pressed, the committee shall then consider in private session whether it will insist upon an answer to the question, having regard to the relevance of the question to the committee's inquiry and the importance to the inquiry of the information sought by the question. If the committee determines that it requires an answer to the question, the witness shall be informed of that determination and the reasons for the determination, and shall be required to answer the question only in private session unless the committee determines that it is essential to the committee's inquiry that the question be answered in public session. Where a witness declines to answer a question to which a committee has required an answer, the committee shall report the facts to the Senate. (11) Where a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect adversely on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in private session. (12) Where a witness gives evidence reflecting adversely on a person and the committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to the committee's inquiry, the committee shall give consideration to expunging that evidence from the transcript of evidence, and to forbidding the publication of that evidence. (13) Where evidence is given which reflects adversely on a person and action of the kind referred to in paragraph (12) is not taken in respect of the evidence, the committee shall provide reasonable opportunity for that person to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission and appearance before the committee. (14) A witness may make application to be accompanied by counsel and to consult counsel in the course of a meeting at which the witness appears. In considering such an application, a committee shall have regard to the need for the witness to be accompanied by counsel to ensure the proper protection of the witness. If an application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. (15) A witness accompanied by counsel shall be given reasonable opportunity to consult counsel during a meeting at which the witness appears, and may make application for the reimbursement of legal costs. A committee shall give consideration to reasonable reimbursement of such costs. (16) Where a person incurs expenses in direct consequence of making a submission to a committee or appearing before a committee, the person may make application for reimbursement of the expenses. A committee shall give consideration to reasonable reimbursement of the expenses. (17) An officer of a department of the Commonwealth or of a State shall not be asked to give opinions of matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a Minister. (18) Reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to witnesses to make corrections of errors of transcription in the transcript of their evidence and to put before a committee additional material supplementary to their evidence. (19) Where a committee has any reason to believe that any person has been improperly influenced in respect of evidence which may be given before the committee, or has been subjected to or threatened with any penalty or injury in respect of any evidence given, the committee shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain the facts of the matter. Where the committee considers that the facts disclose that a person may have been improperly influenced or subjected to or threatened with penalty or injury in respect of evidence which may be or has been given before the committee, the committee shall report the facts and its conclusions to the Senate. 2. Procedures for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges committee That, in considering any matter referred to it which may involve, or gives rise to any allegation of, a contempt, the Committee of Privileges shall observe the procedures set out in this resolution, in addition to the procedures required by the Senate for the protection of witnesses before committees. Where this resolution is inconsistent with the procedures required by the Senate for the protection of witnesses, this resolution shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. (1) A person shall, as soon as practicable, be informed, in writing, of the nature of any allegations, known to the Committee and relevant to the Committee's inquiry, against the person, and of the particulars of any evidence which has been given in respect of the person. (2) The Committee shall extend to that person all reasonable opportunity to respond to such allegations and evidence by: (a) making written submission to the Committee; (b) giving evidence before the Committee; (c) having other evidence placed before the Committee; and (d) having witnesses examined before the Committee. (3) Where oral evidence is given containing any allegation against, or reflecting adversely on, a person, the Committee shall ensure as far as possible that that person is present during the hearing of that evidence, and shall afford all reasonable opportunity for that person, by counsel or personally, to cross-examine witnesses in relation to that evidence. (4) A person appearing before the Committee may be accompanied by counsel, and shall be given all reasonable opportunity to consult counsel during that appearance. (5) A witness shall not be required to answer in public session any question where the Committee has reason to believe that the answer may incriminate the witness. (6) Witnesses shall be heard by the Committee on oath or affirmation. (7) Hearing of evidence by the Committee shall be conducted in public session, except where: (a) the Committee accedes to a request by a witness that the evidence of that witness be heard in private session; (b) the Committee determines that the interests of a witness would best be protected by hearing evidence in private session; or (c) the Committee considers that circumstances are otherwise such as to warrant the hearing of evidence in private session. (8) The Committee may appoint, on terms and conditions approved by the President, counsel to assist it. (9) The Committee may authorise, subject to rules determined by the Committee, the examination by counsel of witnesses before the Committee. (10) As soon as practicable after the Committee has determined findings to be included in the Committee's report to the Senate, and prior to the presentation of the report, a person affected by those findings shall be acquainted with the findings and afforded all reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Committee, in writing and orally, on those findings. The Committee shall take such submissions into account before making its report to the Senate. (11) The Committee may recommend to the President the reimbursement of costs of representation of witnesses before the Committee, and the President is authorised to make reasonable reimbursement of such costs. (12) Before appearing before the Committee a witness shall be given a copy of this resolution. 3. Criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt The Senate declares that it will take into account the following criteria when determining whether matters possibly involving contempt should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and whether a contempt has been committed, and requires the Committee of Privileges to take these criteria into account when inquiring into any matter referred to it: (a) the principle that the Senate's power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for Senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt; and (c) whether a person who committed any act which may be held to be a contempt: (i) knowingly committed that act, or (ii) had any reasonable excuse for the commission of that act. 4. Criteria to be taken into account by the President in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should be given precedence of other business Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should have precedence of other business, the President shall have regard only to the following criteria: (a) the principle that the Senate's power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for Senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt. 5. Protection of persons referred to in the Senate (1) Where a person who has been referred to by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Senate, makes a submission in writing to the President: (a) claiming that the person has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person; and (b) requesting that the person be able to incorporate an appropriate response in the parliamentary record; if the President is satisfied: (c) that the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous or vexatious as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Committee of Privileges; and (d) that it is practicable for the Committee of Privileges to consider the submission under this resolution; the President shall refer the submission to that Committee. (2) Where a submission is referred to the Committee of Privileges under paragraph (1), the Committee may determine not to consider the submission if the Committee considers that the subject of the submission is not sufficiently serious or the submission is frivolous or vexatious. (3) If the Committee pursuant to paragraph (2) decides not to consider a submission referred to it, the Committee shall report that decision to the Senate. (4) If the Committee decides to consider a submission referred to it under this resolution, the Committee shall: (a) invite the person who made the submission to give written or oral evidence to the committee in relation to the submission; (b) make the submission available to a Senator who referred in the Senate to that person and invite that Senator to give written or oral evidence to the Committee in relation to the submission; and (c) invite any other person, including any other Senator, to give written or oral evidence to the Committee in relation to the submission, if the Committee is satisfied that that person may give evidence relevant to the submission. (5) In considering a submission and receiving evidence under this resolution, the Committee shall meet in private session. (6) The Committee shall not publish a submission referred to it under this resolution, its proceedings or any evidence received by it in relation to such a submission, but may present minutes of its proceedings and all or part of such submission or evidence to the Senate. (7) In its report to the Senate on a submission referred to it under this resolution, the Committee shall report whether persons invited to give evidence in relation to the submission have accepted such invitation, and may make either of the following recommendations: (a) that no further action be taken by the Senate or by the Committee in relation to the submission; or (b) that a response by the person who made the submission, in terms specified in the report and agreed to by the person and the Committee, be published by the Senate or incorporated in Hansard. (8) In considering a submission and reporting to the Senate the Committee shall not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the Senate, of the submission or of any evidence received by the Committee. (9) In its report to the Senate on a submission referred to it under this resolution, the Committee shall not make any recommendations other than those specified in paragraph (7). (10) The Committee shall not present to the Senate its minutes of proceedings or all or part of any submission or any evidence received by it if the disclosure of that material would have the effect of: (a) unreasonably adversely affecting or injuring a person, or unreasonably invading a person's privacy, in the manner referred to in paragraph (1); or (b) unreasonably adding to or aggravating any such adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy suffered by a person. 6. Matters constituting contempts That, without derogating from its power to determine that particular acts constitute contempts, the Senate declares, as a matter of general guidance, that breaches of the following prohibitions, and attempts or conspiracies to do the prohibited acts, may be treated by the Senate as contempts. Interference with the Senate (1) A person shall not improperly interfere with the free exercise by the Senate or a committee of its authority, or with the free performance by a Senator of the Senator's duties as a Senator. Improper influence of Senators (2) A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind, or by other improper means, influence a Senator in the Senator's conduct as a Senator or induce a Senator to be absent from the Senate or a committee. Senators seeking benefits, etc. (3) A Senator shall not ask for, receive or obtain, any property or benefit for the Senator, or another, on any understanding that the Senate will be influenced in the discharge of the Senator's duties, or enter into any contract, understanding or arrangement having the effect, or which may have the effect, of controlling or limiting the Senator's independence or freedom of action as a Senator, or pursuant to which the Senator is in any way to act as the representative of any outside body in the discharge of the Senator's duties. Molestation of Senators (4) A person shall not inflict any punishment, penalty or injury upon or deprive of any benefit a Senator on account of the Senator's conduct as a Senator. Disturbance of the Senate (5) A person shall not wilfully disturb the Senate or a committee while it is meeting, or wilfully engage in any disorderly conduct in the precincts of the Senate or a committee tending to disturb its proceedings. Service of writs etc (6) A person shall not serve or execute any criminal or civil process in the precincts of the Senate on a day on which the Senate meets except with the consent of the Senate or of a person authorised by the Senate to give such consent. False reports of proceedings (7) A person shall not wilfully publish any false or misleading report of the proceedings of the Senate or of a committee. Disobedience of orders (8) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, disobey a lawful order of the Senate or of a committee. Obstruction of orders (9) A person shall not interfere with or obstruct another person who is carrying out a lawful order of the Senate or of a committee. Interference with witnesses (10) A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind, or by other improper means, influence another person in respect of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee, or induce another person to refrain from giving such evidence. Molestation of witnesses (11) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon or deprive of any benefit another person on account of any evidence or to be given before the Senate or a committee. Offences by witnesses etc (12) A witness before the Senate or a committee shall not: (a) without reasonable excuse, refuse to make an oath or affirmation or give some similar undertaking to tell the truth when required to do so; (b) without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness when required to do so; or (c) give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular. (13) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse: (a) refuse or fail to attend before the Senate or a committee when ordered to do so; or (b) refuse or fail to produce documents, or to allow the inspection of documents, in accordance with an order of the Senate or of a committee. (14) A person shall not wilfully avoid service of an order of the Senate or of a committee. (15) A person shall not destroy, damage, forge or falsify any document required to be produced by the Senate or by a committee. Unauthorised disclosure of evidence etc (16) A person shall not, without the authority of the Senate or a committee, publish or disclose: (a) a document that has been prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted, to the Senate or a committee and has been directed by the Senate or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in private session or as a document confidential to the Senate or the committee; (b) any oral evidence taken by the Senate or a committee in private session, or a report of any such oral evidence; or (c) any proceedings in private session of the Senate or a committee or any report of such proceedings, unless the Senate or a committee has published, or authorised the publication of, that document, that oral evidence or a report of those proceedings. 7. Raising of matters of privilege That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, a matter of privilege shall not be brought before the Senate except in accordance with the following procedures. (1) A Senator intending to raise a matter of privilege shall notify the President, in writing, of the matter. (2) The President shall consider the matter and determine, as soon as practicable, whether a motion relating to the matter should have precedence of other business, having regard to the criteria set out in any relevant resolution of the Senate. The President's decision shall be communicated to the Senator, and, if the President thinks it appropriate, or determines that a motion relating to the matter should have precedence, to the Senate. (3) A Senator shall not take any action in relation to, or refer to, in the Senate, a matter which is under consideration by the President in accordance with this resolution. (4) Where the President determines that a motion relating to a matter should be given precedence of other business, the Senator may, at any time when there is no other business before the Senate, give notice of a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. Such notice shall take precedence of all other business on the day for which the notice is given. (5) A determination by the President that a motion relating to a matter should not have precedence of other business does not prevent a Senator in accordance with other procedures taking action in relation to, or referring to, that matter in the Senate, subject to the rules of the Senate. (6) Where notice of a motion is given under paragraph (4) and the Senate is not expected to meet within the period of one week occurring immediately after the day on which the notice is given, the motion may be moved on that day. 8. Motions relating to contempts That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, a motion to: (a) determine that a person has committed a contempt; or (b) impose a penalty upon a person for a contempt, shall not be moved unless notice of the motion has been given not less than 7 days before the day for moving the motion. 9. Exercise of Freedom of Speech (1) That the Senate considers that, in speaking in the Senate or in a committee, Senators should take the following matters into account: (a) the need to exercise their valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner; (b) the damage that may be done by allegations made in Parliament to those who are the subject of such allegations and to the standing of Parliament; (c) the limited opportunities for persons other than members of Parliament to respond to allegations made in Parliament; (d) the need for Senators, while fearlessly performing their duties, to have regard to the rights of others; and (e) the desirability of ensuring that statements reflecting adversely on persons are soundly based. (2) That the President, whenever the President considers that it is desirable to do so, may draw the attention of the Senate to the spirit and the letter of this resolution. 10. Reference to Senate proceedings in court proceedings (1) That, without derogating from the law relating to the use which may be made of proceedings in Parliament under section 49 of the Constitution, and subject to any law and any order of the Senate relating to the disclosure of proceedings of the Senate or a committee, the Senate declares that leave of the Senate is not required for the admission into evidence, or reference to, records or reports of proceedings in the Senate or in a committee of the Senate, or the admission of evidence relating to such proceedings, in proceedings before any court or tribunal. (2) That the practice whereby leave of the Senate is sought in relation to matters referred to in paragraph (1) be discontinued. (3) That the Senate should be notified of any admission of evidence or reference to proceedings of the kind referred to in paragraph (1), and the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States be requested to develop procedures whereby such notification may be given. 11. Consultation between Privileges Committees That, in considering any matter referred to it, the Committee of Privileges may confer with the Committee of Privileges of the House of Representatives. PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE Explanatory Notes These notes list the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege on which the proposed resolutions are based, and indicate the nature of and the reasons for any proposed modifications of the terms of the Committee's recommendations. Some of the Committee's recommendations were for amendments to the Standing Orders, but the following all take the form of resolutions, in accordance with the practice of trying new procedures by resolution before they are written into the Standing Orders. It may also be desirable to keep all the matters together rather than have them scattered through the Standing Orders. The proposed resolutions have been drafted so as to be consistent with the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1986 introduced by Mr President. Minor changes to the wording of resolutions recommended by the Committee and changes to take account of Senate practice and phraseology are not noted. Proposed resolution 1: Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses. Recommendation 35 of the Committee. The Committee substantially adopted a suggested resolution put to it by the Senate Department, which reflected practices already adopted by Senate committees. The following modifications have been suggested to the resolution recommended by the Committee. (1) The resolution recommended by the Committee was limited to ``investigatory'' committees. There would seem to be no reason for not extending it to all committees. (2) Paragraph (5), referring to opportunity for witnesses to raise matters of concern to them before they give evidence, was not included in the Committee's recommendation, but it is suggested that it be included in the resolution. (3) Paragraph (6) of the Committee's recommended resolution would require reasons for refusing a witness's application to be heard in camera to be given in public. It may well be that a witness would prefer not to have the reasons published, and this is reflected in the proposed resolution (paragraph (7)). (4) Words have been added to paragraph (7) to make it clear that a witness may ask to give part of the witness's evidence in private session during the hearing of the witness's evidence. The witness may wish to answer a particular question in camera. (5) Paragraph (9) has been altered to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the chairman to rule on the relevance and necessity of a particular question, but that it is open to the committee to deliberate in private session and to determine whether any particular question, the relevance or necessity of which has been questioned, should be asked. (6) Paragraph (10) has been altered to make it clear that it is open to the committee to determine at once, without going into private session to deliberate, that a question objected to by a witness should not be pressed. It may happen that a Senator immediately withdraws a question to which objection has been taken, and the committee accepts the withdrawal of the question. (7) Paragraph (12) of the Committee's recommended resolution would provide that a committee may give reasonable opportunity for a person to respond to evidence adverse to the person. There would seem to be no reason for not making the reasonable opportunity mandatory, given that a committee may decide what is a reasonable opportunity in the circumstances (paragraph (13) of the proposed resolution). (8) Paragraph (14) has been changed to provide a criterion for a committee to use when determining whether a request for a witness to be accompanied by counsel will be granted, namely, the need for the witness to be accompanied by counsel to ensure the proper protection of the witness. (9) Words have been added to paragraph (15) to make provision for application by a witness for the reimbursement of legal costs where the witness has been granted the right to be accompanied by counsel, and for the committee to consider such application. (10) Paragraph (16) is a new paragraph providing for a witness to make application for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in direct consequence of making a submission to a committee or giving evidence, and for the committee to consider such application. Proposed resolution 2: Procedures for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee Recommendation 21 of the Committee. The Committee did not recommend the terms of a resolution. The procedures recommended by the Committee are cast in the form of conferring protection upon persons ``against whom a complaint has been made''. The difficulty with this formulation is that a reference to the Privileges Committee often does not contain a complaint against any person, but merely refers to a matter which may involve or may give rise to an allegation of contempt against a person. The Privileges Committee has the task of investigating the matter to determine whether any contempt has been committed, and if so, by whom, and of hearing evidence and making a determination in relation to any allegation of contempt which may emerge during the inquiry. In other words, it combines the functions of an investigative agency and a court of first hearing in a criminal matter. A person who is called merely as a witness may turn out to be the person against whom an allegation is made, and different allegations may be made against different people. It would seem, therefore, to be preferable to confer protection on all persons involved in the Privileges Committee's inquiry against whom any allegation is made or any adverse evidence given, regardless of whether those persons are in the position of an ``accused''. This would have a considerable advantage over criminal proceedings in a court. In such proceedings very damaging accusations may be made against witnesses, by cross-examination and submissions, without those witnesses having any opportunity to respond or defend themselves; only the accused is protected, and only in relation to conviction for the specific charges before the court. The proposed resolution has been drafted accordingly, and because of this it is substantially different from the rules suggested by the Committee. The proposed resolution having been drafted in this way, it subsumes recommendation 24 of the Committee, relating to the reputations of ``third persons'' in Privileges Committee inquiries. Other modifications of the Committee's recommendation are as follows. (1) Paragraph (a) of the Committee's recommended rules would give the Privileges Committee discretion to hear evidence in camera. Paragraph (7) of the proposed resolution would allow the Privileges Committee to hear evidence in camera only for the purpose of protecting witnesses or where the Committee considers it otherwise appropriate. It may be that the protection of witnesses should be the sole ground. (2) Paragraph (h) of the Committee's recommended resolution would allow the person ``against whom the complaint is made'' to make submissions ``at the conclusion of the evidence''. This provision is based on the analogy with criminal proceedings. Paragraph (10) of the proposed resolution would allow any person affected by proposed findings of the Committee to make submissions on those findings before the findings are finally formulated and presented to the Senate. Proposed resolution 3: Criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt. Recommendation 14 of the Committee. The proposed resolution is cast in the form of a declaration by the Senate that it will take criteria into account in determining whether matters should be referred to the Privileges Committee and whether a contempt has been committed, rather than a resolution expressing an opinion as to how the penal jurisdiction should be exercised as recommended by the Committee. The proposed resolution would also require the Privileges Committee to take the stated matters into account. Paragraph (a) of the proposed resolution contains the principle recommended by the Committee. Other matters not recommended by the Committee are suggested, as follows: paragraph (b): the existence of another remedy, i.e., a civil or criminal action; and paragraph (c): mens rea and reasonable excuse; and Proposed resolution 4: Matters to be taken into account by the President in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should be given precedence of other business The Committee did not recommend any specification of the matters to be taken into account in determining whether a motion should have precedence, but it would seem to be desirable to give the President some guidance in exercising this discretion, and to use the same criteria as the Senate itself would adopt to determine whether a contempt has been committed, except those which would involve any judgment of the content of an alleged contempt. The proposed resolution has been drafted accordingly. Proposed resolution 5: Protection of persons referred to in the Senate Recommendation 3 of the Committee. The Committee did not formulate a specific resolution, but suggested a series of ground rules for incorporation on a trial basis in the Standing Orders. Modifications have been made to the procedures recommended by the Committee, as follows. (1) The Committee suggested that a complaint of misuse of privilege should not contain ``any matter amounting either directly or indirectly to an attack or a reflection on any Member of Parliament''. It is suggested that this criterion not be adopted. It may be extremely difficult for a person to claim that the person has been unfairly attacked in Parliament without at least indirectly reflecting on a member. Such a person may well need to state that a member did not tell the truth, which would be a grave reflection. (2) The Committee suggested procedures that leave the Committee of Privileges at liberty to deal with the matter in any way it thinks fit. The proposed resolution would restrict the Committee to specific procedures and remedies. It is suggested that it would be desirable to do this to prevent undue interference with a member's freedom of speech. Proposed resolution 6: Matters constituting contempts Recommendations 27 to 33 of the Committee. The proposed resolution has been cast in the form of a declaration by the Senate, for the information of the public, as to matters it may treat as contempts. The guidelines recommended by the Committee were taken from the Offences Against the Parliament Bill 1981 introduced by Senator Button. The Committee departed from the provisions of Senator Button's Bill in a few places, and these departures are the subject of suggested modifications. The following comments are offered and modifications suggested in relation to the Committee's suggested guidelines. (1) The Committee suggested, as part of its description of ``molestation'', that it would be a contempt to ``engage in any course of conduct intended to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties as a Member''. It is suggested that this formulation could be regarded as preventing normal, acceptable and democratic methods of influencing members, eg, telling a member that a vigorous campaign will be conducted against the member in the next election unless the member votes for a particular measure. (2) The Committee suggested a contempt involving a member receiving any benefit on the understanding that the member would be influenced in the discharge of the member's duties, or entering into any arrangement controlling or limiting a member's independence or freedom of action or involving the member acting as the representative of an outside body. Paragraph (2) of the proposed resolution contains the Committee's formulation. In so far as this is intended to relate to bribery and corruption of members, it may be regarded as already covered, to the extent necessary in a declaration for the guidance of the public, by paragraph (2) of the suggested resolution. It may be thought that the wording suggested by the Committee is too wide and could make contempts out of normal, acceptable and democratic activities, eg, a member agreeing to be bound by the decision of the member's party, or accepting the political support of an interest group, or agreeing to make representations on behalf of an interest group. (3) The contempt of impairing the respect due to the authority of a House or a committee has been omitted from paragraph (5), relating to disturbance of meetings. It is suggested that this phrase is too vague. (4) The provisions referring to the publication of in camera evidence and premature publication of reports have been combined in paragraph (16), and drafted so as to be consistent with Mr President's Bill. Proposed resolution 7: Raising of matters of privilege Recommendation 20 of the Committee. No substantive changes are suggested to the procedures recommended by the Committee. Proposed resolution 8: Motions relating to contempts Recommendation 22 of the Committee. The Committee recommended that 7 days' notice be given of any motion for the imposition of a penalty for a contempt. It is not clear in the Committee's report or the recommendation whether it was intended that this apply to a motion declaring a person to be guilty of a contempt as well as a motion for imposing a penalty. It has been assumed that this was the intention, and the proposed resolution is drafted accordingly. Proposed resolution 9: Exercise of freedom of speech Recommendation 4 of the Committee. The following modifications of the Committee's recommended resolution are suggested. (1) The Committee's resolution would enjoin members to take account of the listed matters when reflecting adversely on any person. It is suggested that members should be asked to take the listed matters into account before they make a decision to reflect adversely on any person. The suggested resolution is therefore drafted to request members to consider the matters whenever they speak. (2) The Committee's recommended resolution would ask members to take into account the damage that may be done by unsubstantiated allegations. It is suggested that members be asked to consider the damage that may be done by any allegations, whether substantiated or not. Proposed resolution 10: Reference to Senate proceedings in court proceedings Recommendation 8 of the Committee. The following modifications of the Committee's recommended resolution are suggested. (1) It would not seem to be appropriate for a resolution to reaffirm a law which is not made by resolution in the first place. The terminology of non-derogation has been substituted. (2) Reference is made to any relevant law under section 49 of the Constitution, rather than only article 9 of the Bill of Rights, to take account of any possible interpretation of the effect of Mr President's Bill. (3) In order to take full account of the possibility of unauthorised publication of proceedings, it is necessary to refer to any relevant law (such as is proposed by Mr President's Bill) and any relevant order. (4) It would not seem to be appropriate for the Senate to be giving leave for evidence to be admitted when the courts have determined that leave is not as a matter of law necessary. The proposed resolution therefore declares that leave is not required. (5) The resolution recommended by the Committee refers only to records and reports of proceedings and documents. It is necessary to refer to any form of evidence relating to proceedings. Proposed resolution 11: Consultation between Privileges Committees Recommendation 26 of the Committee. No modifications of the recommendation are suggested. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to make a short statement in explanation. Senator Durack —You can make your speech on the Bill as far as I am concerned. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I hope Senator Durack will adopt that relaxed stance in future; it will do wonders for relationships in this place. I simply say that it is not my intention at this stage to move the resolutions that I have tabled and circulated in the chamber. I am tabling them at this stage simply to allow ample opportunity for comment and discussion on their terms before they are formally brought forward for debate. I am well aware that many of the resolutions deal with sensitive and difficult issues and may require further refinement in the course of that discussion and debate. I am also presenting the draft resolutions in conjunction with the Senate's consideration of the Parliamentary Privileges Bill because they represent the other part of the package of changes recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. The Bill deals only with those changes to the law relating to parliamentary privilege requiring statutory enactment. Briefly, those changes are: Abolition of the category of contempt involving defamation of the Houses or their members; statutory codification of the penalties which may be imposed by the Houses for contempts; abolition of the power of expulsion of members; specification of the cause of any penalty of imprisonment imposed by a House and consequent review by the courts; uniform qualified privilege in relation to parliamentary proceedings; statutory protection of witnesses; limitation of the duration of immunities from civil arrest and from compulsory court attendance. The matters dealt with by the resolutions, by contrast, cover all the other recommendations, of which there are a great many, in the Joint Select Committee's report. The contents and the context of those resolutions are specified in the explanatory notes which accompany them and which I have also tabled. The draft resolutions were prepared at my request in the Department of the Senate, with particular input from the Acting Deputy Clerk, Mr Harry Evans, and they reflect the terms of the Joint Committee's recommendations, except where those recommendations have been departed from for particular reasons which are explained in the explanatory notes. The resolutions are necessarily expressed to refer to the Senate and senators, but may be considered to be suitable for adoption by both Houses with appropriate variations of wording. I certainly hope that House of Representatives members will look at them in that light. I have not had the opportunity to discuss the terms of the proposed resolutions with members of the former Joint Select Committee or, indeed, with senators and members generally, but I am putting them forward at this stage, I repeat, to allow ample opportunity for discussion and comment, and to put the debate on the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, which will now continue, in its proper context. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.34) —The Parliamentary Privileges Bill was introduced by the former President, Senator Douglas McClelland, in October of last year. I am a little surprised that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table, did not open this debate. Apparently he has chosen to close it, or perhaps not to speak at all, for which many of us may be thankful; but I think that may be too much to expect. The Bill that the former President introduced into the Senate has really made a lot of new ground in many respects. It should not go without notice that it is the first time, I believe, that the President of the Senate has introduced a Bill of his own initiative. That in itself indicates that this proposal has been very widely discussed by senators, and by senators with the former President. It reflects the fact that this legislation is very much about the standing, status and what are called the privileges of senators and members of parliament. Of course, the Bill is a proposal for a new law. It is not simply an expression of opinion by the Senate about its privileges. It is intended in due course, hopefully, to be an Act of Parliament, with the concurrence of the House of Representatives, which will lay down in a modern form and in a statute some solutions to the problems of parliamentary privilege where the traditional method of determining these things has not proved satisfactory. Of course, the Constitution confirms our privileges. I do not need to remind honourable senators of the provisions of section 49 of the Constitution, which is of great interest and is the very foundation of the discussion on this Bill. Section 49 provides that the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. That provision is in the Constitution and has been for the whole life of our national Parliament. It underlines the antiquity, so to speak, of the whole subject that we are addressing in this legislation. The whole question of the privileges of parliament goes back to the very earliest days of parliament, particularly of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. I have not done the research on the subject that has been done by the Clerks of the Senate, in particular Mr Harry Evans, who has been of such assistance to us all in this chamber on this subject in recent years. But, tabled with the Bill has been a document headed `Documents Presented to the Senate' about parliamentary privilege. I commend that document to honourable senators because it contains a wealth of interesting material on the question that we are now debating. It gives in a very brief form some indication of the history of parliamentary privilege. The struggle of the House of Commons, as it became known in due course, continued over many centuries. The privilege that we have enshrined in section 49 of the Constitution, upon which we have acted over the last 80-odd years, evolved over that period. Of particular note was the struggle by the members of the House of Commons against the Crown and various institutions of the Crown, including the courts. Parliamentary privilege is woven into the whole fabric of our constitutional history and indeed the political history of Britain, which meant so much in the development of our freedoms, not only the freedoms of parliamentary institutions and parliamentary democracy that we now know but the freedoms of all Australians. After those introductory words I now address myself to the particular problems that this Bill deals with. In the last 80 years or so I suppose we have jogged along quite successfully with the statement of our privileges as set out in the Constitution. Some major issues have arisen but not very often. Although there have been many reports, decisions and resolutions concerning privileges, these have not shaken the fabric of our parliamentary institutions or our society. I suppose the case which has given rise to the most interest and debate and which Australian history books no doubt will continue to refer to as the most notable example is the case in which imprisonment was ordered for two gentlemen named Browne and Fitzpatrick. We should also remember that the House of Representatives in fact expelled a member. To make it an even greater offence, he was a member for a Western Australian constituency! That in itself should shake us a bit. This Bill addresses that question. It proposes the abolition of the power of a House of parliament to expel a member. I think that is a very democratic proposal. We are elected to the Parliament by the people. It is their decision and it should be their decision whether somebody is not fit to remain as a member. It is not for us to decide. The foundation of much of this legislation on parliamentary privilege was addressed in recent years by the Joint Select Committee on Privileges, which reported in October 1984. That Committee was set up during the life of the Fraser Government. Mr Spender, the present shadow Attorney-General, was the chairman of that Committee. Even though there was a change of government in 1983 he continued to act as Chairman. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, who is at the table, was Deputy Chairman. The Committee's report covers a great range of the subject but its recommendations cover much more than this Bill attempts to deal with. This Bill simply deals with most of the recommendations, I suppose it would be fair to say, concerning changes which require an Act of Parliament. At the beginning of this debate Senator Evans tabled various other recommendations of the Committee concerning changes which could be made by resolution of either House. As with the passing of the changes in this legislation, I hope that in future we will be able to get uniformity between the two Houses on a number of other matters, subject of course to the fierce independence of the two Houses, which sometimes goes to absurd lengths, I know. On the other hand, no doubt in some cases there is justification for a different approach. Nevertheless, to the extent we can get as much uniformity as possible, that is desirable and I hope that members of both Houses will endeavour to achieve it. I do not propose to address myself to any other matters arising from the report of the Joint Committee except those that need legislative change. The other matter of history I need to mention is that Mr Spender introduced into the House of Representatives on 21 May 1985 a Bill for an Act to declare the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the members and committees of each House. That Bill covered a number of matters that are proposed in the McClelland Bill, if I may call it that, which is before us. The Spender Bill, however, included one recommendation of the Joint Committee which is not adopted by the McClelland Bill and that is the conferring of original jurisdiction on the High Court of Australia. It provided that a Full Court, constituted by at least three justices of that Court, should deal with applications made by any person aggrieved by decisions in relation to privilege by either House of Parliament. The jurisdiction that it was proposed to confer upon that Court in broad terms would not have allowed the Court to hear the case of privilege but to deal with the matter after Parliament had made findings, apparently with the object of having the High Court make a declaration, as it is called-something in the nature of advice, as I understand it. The Bill specifically said that the High Court could not make a judgment or order or grant a remedy or direct the issue of a writ. The High Court's role would have been more or less to advise the Parliament whether it was within its powers to take the action it had taken. In other words, only the question of law would have been decided by the High Court. That proposal is not included in this legislation but this legislation clearly enables it to be decided whether Parliament has acted within its jurisdiction in deciding to imprison any person for a breach of privilege. It requires, as indeed the Spender Bill required, that the House of Parliament should set out the particulars of its findings. Clause 9 of the Bill states: . . . the resolution of the House imposing the penalty and the warrant committing the person to custody shall set out particulars of the matters determined by the House to constitute that offence. That offence refers to the breach of privilege. It is clear that if the particulars do not reveal a breach of privilege as defined in this legislation that would be a justiciable question and application could be made to a court. The explanatory memorandum sets out the way in which that would work in a fairly clear way, perhaps more clearly than I am expressing it now. It means that the legal system would be involved in the decision as the matter may go to a court and, ultimately, the High Court of Australia. I see no reason why any question as to the Parliament's powers should not be decided in the courts in that way even though, in the past, it has not been considered appropriate for the courts to be involved in questions of parliamentary privilege. I do not think it is suitable for a matter to go straight to the Full Court of the High Court as proposed in the Spender Bill. The opinion advanced in the explanatory memorandum by a very distinguished former First Parliamentary Counsel who drafted the legislation is that referring a matter to the High Court in that way for that type of decision, declaration, or whatever one calls it, probably would be unconstitutional and would amount to an advisory opinion which the High Court has said it does not have the power to give. That may well be right. However, for other reasons, it seems an undesirable way of approaching the matter. If a person believes that he has been aggrieved by a decision of the Parliament and that the Parliament acted outside its powers and jurisdiction, I believe that he should be able to challenge that in the same way as people frequently challenge legislation passed by this Parliament as being unconstitutional. None of us should be disturbed about the legal system making a judgment on what we do here-we are familiar with it-but it would be better for it to proceed by way of the ordinary judicial method. The only other matter to which I want to refer concerns a major question which does not appear in the Spender Bill but which is dealt with in this legislation-that is, the provisions of the Bill which give effect to full immunity for members of parliament and witnesses before parliamentary committees as we have always understood them to be under the Bill of Rights. The matter has exercised the Senate very closely in recent times, particularly regarding the two trials of the late Mr Justice Murphy. Preceding those trials were two Senate committees. A number of the witnesses who were called to give evidence at the trials had been before the committees. In fact, evidence given by those witnesses to the committees, and in one case in camera evidence, was widely used in the trials in the cross-examination of witnesses. That practice was allowed by both the presiding judges-the late Mr Justice Cantor and Mr Justice Hunt, both of the New South Wales Supreme Court. Mr Justice Hunt's judgment is of particular concern to us. His judgment explained in great length what he intended to do and why he intended to allow a lot of questioning. His reasoning was of considerable surprise to everybody. Indeed, it came as a surprise to some judges in other jurisdictions who have not followed it. Certainly, it was contrary to almost all the previous decisions in England and Australia on the ambit of privilege for members of parliament and witnesses before committees. Mr Justice Hunt took a very narrow view of the Bill of Rights immunity. He cut it right back to virtually say that one cannot found an action or a prosecution simply on what a person says or does in the parliamentary chamber or, I suppose, before a committee as a witness. That was a much more restrictive view than had been thought to be the case. It enabled extensive cross-examination of witnesses. However, it went further. Statements made by senators, members or witnesses could be used as evidence against them in proceedings against them; certainly, the foundation of the proceedings may have been acts or words used outside the Parliament but what they had said or done in the Parliament could be used as evidence in support of the prosecution. That went much further, I think, than anybody had ever dreamt in restricting the privileges of the Bill of Rights. The Bill proposes to restore the full amplitude of the Bill of Rights as it has been understood. Some people think that it goes too far. Perhaps it is felt that what people have said could be used at least for cross-examination as to their credit; that is to say, if a person says something different in a court from what he said in Parliament or before a committee, it may be used to show that he is not to be believed because he gives different answers in different places. However, it is very difficult to put proper limits on that. I have taken the view, as the Senate has taken the view and as the former President, in his submissions to the judges concerned, took the view, that the Bill of Rights prevented that from being done. I support the Bill in that respect. The effect of the decision by Mr Justice Hunt and that of the late Mr Justice Cantor would be serious not only for senators and members but also for the operation of our committee system. There is no doubt whatever that it has been a very important feature of the development of that committee system that witnesses before committees-we all have experience of witnesses appearing before committees-are told that they are completely protected in what they say to the committee. It has been a vital role in Parliament obtaining the information it needs to perform its work. Judges tend to believe that their work is more important than that of parliament and, therefore, their duty to ascertain the truth is paramount over the interests of parliament. It is a question of judgment by us as to whether we believe that to be the case. I do not believe that it is the case. There are other restrictions on judges and juries in ascertaining the truth. A whole lot of quite absurd restrictions have been developed in the courts which prevent judges and juries ascertaining the truth. I find it a bit strange that Mr Justice Hunt in particular-he is the only judge who has articulated this theory in full-should have been so concerned about restrictions being placed on the process of his court, or on any court for that matter, by this wide interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Even if the legislation is to be amended it is necessary to clarify the matter one way or the other. As I have said, there is great uncertainty. Mr Justice Zelling, in a South Australian case, and Mr Justice Carruthers, who is a member of the New South Wales Supreme Court, have taken different views in cases subsequent to Mr Justice Hunt's judgment. There is utter confusion. The Bill should be dealt with urgently so the matter can be clarified, whether in the way the Bill proposes or by way of amendments which may be proposed. Certainly, the first requirement is to have the matter clarified. I believe that the Bill clarifies it in the proper way. I propose to support the Bill in that respect. I understand some other amendments are being proposed by the drafter of the Bill, Mr Comans, which will clarify certain aspects of it. I am not aware of any other amendments, but clearly there may be further amendments in the course of this debate. Naturally, I am not going to exclude consideration of any further amendments if they are proposed. I do not have any proposed amendments. In conclusion, I simply say that I am speaking purely in a personal capacity in this debate. As far as the Opposition is concerned, we are treating this as a free vote. Any member of the Opposition is perfectly at liberty to take whatever view he or she likes. Although there has been very consistent and solid support by Opposition senators for the line which has been taken on behalf of the Senate by the former President, nevertheless that is not to say that some of them may not have different views in this debate. For my part, I support the Bill in its entirety. I express my very considerable gratitude and respect for the stand which the former President took in this matter and for the way he consulted with all sides of the chamber in relation to this problem, throughout all the difficult times in both trials of Mr Justice Murphy. He then carried through that initiative in having this Bill drafted and engaged a distinguished drafter in the person of Mr Comans. I also congratulate Mr Harry Evans for the amount of work he has done and assistance he has given me personally in this whole question. I believe it has been a very valuable exercise. It is in the best traditions of this chamber. Hopefully we will be able to get wide agreement not only in this chamber, but also in the other place in support of this most important proposal. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.03) —I thank Senator Childs for allowing me to speak at this juncture. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege both in the Thirty-Second Parliament and the Thirty-Third Parliament, as a person who went through the entire inquiry and as a signatory to the report I, amongst other members of that Committee, was most anxious that the matter should not cease there. Therefore, with particular personal support, I am pleased to speak in this debate. It is an historic debate. Section 49 of the Constitution, which provides for the privileges of the chamber, states: The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. The matter of interest, which I think is probably of little concern to people outside these chambers, is that there has been no declaration under section 49 of the Constitution. This is the first piece of legislation under that section of the Constitution which, for 86 years, has remained unused. I believe that the Committee made a particularly important point on this matter that I would like to quote in full. It is contained in chapter 3, paragraph 3.2. The Committee, in addressing itself to this matter, stated: No declaration within section 49 has been made. That is why I believe this is an historic piece of legislation we are dealing with tonight. It continues: Hence, the privileges of the two Houses, their committees and their Members, are in all respects identical to those of the House of Commons of over 80 years ago. To many, it seems distinctly odd that to discover the nature and extent of its privileges a sovereign legislature should have to look back to a point of time frozen in the history of a legislature of another country. Moreover, in looking back, it is necessary to recall that the privileges of the House of Commons had been judged by that House to be incapable of change in substance, save by statute, since the year 1704. There have been vast changes in the political, social and economic fabric of our society since 1901, and in the means of communication of spoken and written words. The changes that have taken place since the turn of the 18th Century are even more vast, and the obvious question arises of the relevance of privileges grounded on such ancient precedents. I think that is why in fact it is necessary for this chamber to address this issue. It has been very difficult to keep this spark alive since the report of the Joint Committee was presented. A number of people have urged their colleagues to take an interest in this matter. Senator Gareth Evans, as the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee, has been one of those people. I certainly pay tribute to his work in continuing to keep people's attention focused on this issue when there are so many other important matters which do take up the time of the government of the day and the time of this chamber. Unless this chamber is willing, on occasions, to address these particular problems, certainly nobody else is going to. It has been unfortunate that this chamber and the other place have been so unwilling since Federation to come to grips with the very important problems that are inherent in this matter. Hopefully this is the start of a number of such pieces of legislation. I believe that ultimately the drafts of notices of motion that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table, has placed at the beginning of this debate will end up in statute. I am particularly pleased that I have played a small role in this matter. I do not know whether the suggestions that I made to the then President on 9 April last year finally tipped the balance. One always likes to look back at these matters and hope that they indeed were a help. One can then possibly go raging down through history as a footnote but at least a footnote is probably better than nothing. I put it to the President at that time last year that he ought to take the unprecedented step of sponsoring a Bill with regard to the privileges and immunities of the Senate. The then President, for whatever reason, afterwards did in fact introduce such a Bill. Senator Durack has referred to the Bill that Mr Spender has introduced in the other place. I also introduced a Bill into this chamber on 22 August 1985 which seeks to clarify and reform the laws and procedures of parliamentary privilege. A number of such Bills have been brought forward. The Parliamentary Privileges Bill before us tonight, however, does not seek to go across the whole of that operation. What the Bill that we are looking at tonight is seeking to do is two-fold: Firstly, it will look at some of those recommendations and codify them insofar as they are ancillary to the matter of the interpretation of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, particularly the interpretation given by Mr Justice Cantor and Mr Justice Hunt in successive trials of the late Mr Justice Murphy in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Former Senator Douglas McClelland, the then President, pointed out at one time that he was taking the step of introducing a Bill because of the fundamental importance of the freedom of speech to the operations of both chambers and to the serious threat that the freedom of speech was under if the judgments were allowed to stand and were accepted in other courts and jurisdictions. They have not been accepted and allowed to stand; in fact, there have been contradictory judgments. Nevertheless, to allow those judgments to stand without the Senate and the House of Representatives finally being goaded into some action would have given at least tacit support to those judgments. Those judgments should not have that tacit support. The freedom of speech of the Parliament, which enables it to conduct its proceedings without supervision or interference from outside authorities, is fundamental to the operation of a parliamentary democracy. It is open to abuse, as any privilege has to be open to abuse. There cannot be a privilege without the possibility of its abuse. When one considers the abuse of such a privilege and the necessity for such a privilege one finds that the two things are not in the same ball court. The ability of any member, elected by the people of Australia, to come into this chamber and speak about any matter he or she believes needs to be spoken about, to raise any issue he or she believes needs to be raised and to talk about occurrences anywhere within the Commonwealth of Australia is a privilege and should be taken by all members of parliament to be such. It is not possible anywhere else to speak about all these matters, only in the chambers of this Parliament is it possible to do so. The matters may concern anything to do with the people of the Commonwealth of Australia. As such, most members over the years have seen this privilege as a privilege and have weighed very carefully the things they have said and have refrained from saying. I do not wish it to be taken that I have supported everything that everybody has said in this place. Far be it from me to have done that. Nevertheless, I believe that by and large the usefulness of this privilege has been shown time and again. Members of parliament have been able to bring up matters that hold the government of the day up to the light of public scrutiny, and have been able to raise matters which people in other parts of the Commonwealth may wish were not raised, not brought under public scrutiny and not had the light of inquiry brought to bear upon them. The principle has applied not only to this chamber but also, successfully and probably more productively in the last 10 years or so, to the committees of this chamber which have inquired into innumerable matters; inquiries which have led to legislation or have toughened up various laws. These inquiries have been successful only because honourable senators have initially raised the problem and we have seen the necessity for a further more detailed inquiry by one of the Senate committees which has the same type of privilege. Therefore, this is an historic piece of legislation in that in it we seek to set down, in as clear terms as possible, this privilege. Possibly in the Committee stage we will be able to raise some of these matters in more detail and deal with specific items. It is difficult-it is not a simple and straightforward matter-to codify the privileges of this chamber or the other place. Recently we have seen a judgment with regard to contempt of court by a public figure who, along with part of the media, has been dealt with by a court which saw that certain actions were in contempt of court. Courts have been wont to take these actions probably because judges are not elected as frequently as the people in this place. That is an important distinction that needs to be made when it comes to the privileges of this chamber. Somebody has said, in regard to something else, that it is like beating somebody with a feather duster. Indeed, the reports of the Privileges Committee of this place and of the other place have been a collection of feather dusters, except in one particular instance-and I am not at all sure that in that instance there was very much joy either, particularly if one wants to read through the matter as those of us who were members of the Joint Committee did. I am particularly taken with the fact that the Senate in its operations has been, seemingly, slightly more sane, less brittle and less concerned than the other place about people saying things about it. I suppose that might be the nature of our respective electorates, in that a very large number of people here are protected in a pseudo way from the electorate as distinct from the quite pointed way members of the House of Representatives have to confront the electorate at every election. But whatever the reason for it, the Senate has been innovative in, for example, the area of protection to committee witnesses. A great many protective mechanisms have been developed over time to protect witnesses appearing before committees. The Senate has not gone galloping off when somebody in the media has decided to make some comments about whether we are a whole lot of drunken bums, and has felt that it is quite pointless to go down that path. This chamber has tried to look very clearly at a constructive use over time of the privilege of being able to raise any matter in parliament that needs to be raised. Whereas other matters probably gain much more media attention and are referred to as privileges of the Parliament or the chamber, it seems to me that the privilege we are dealing with in this Bill is the central issue-the ability which initially members of the House of Commons needed to raise matters so that they would not literally get hauled on to the rack by the Crown. In our case if narrow interpretations had been allowed to stand and had been followed statements made by witnesses before our committees could have been brought up again in court. Whilst that may not seem to other people to be terribly important, if the Parliament is to be able to undertake inquiries it has to be able to protect its witnesses. To get material from witnesses, particularly from witnesses who can appear only in a closed session of committee hearings, some type of protection must be offered to them. Unfortunately, we have not been very good at doing that, for a whole host of reasons. Hopefully, this aspect will improve. Surely one of the protections we must be able to give is that the evidence provided by witnesses before a committee should not be able to be questioned elsewhere. If the judgments were allowed to stand that would certainly seem to be the case. This matter concerns not just witnesses before committees. If one looks at the judgments given, although no references were made to members of the Parliament a very simple extension of the judgments could well be that they may be taken to refer to members of parliament. In fact, I do not see how that interpretation-that is, that members of parliament could also be questioned about what they said and did here-could have been avoided. I believe that to allow such a questioning of the Parliament by a court could not have been permitted to stand and that it has been at least one of the major factors goading us to move on this matter after such an incredible delay. If an honourable senator wished to raise an item in this place and then went outside and made some innocuous comment about an individual, it was quite possible under the Hunt judgment that remarks made here could have been used to prove something such as malice in those statements. That is not something that we can permit. However, I have found, and I am quite sure that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table, would have found, that when we have discussed these matters with our colleagues we have not necessarily met with a great deal of interest. That is a pity. I hope that members and senators who contribute to this debate, either in the second reading stage or in the Committee stage, have taken the opportunity to read the report of the Joint Committee, to look at the various draft Bills that have been provided and to look at the material that the previous President presented by way of legal argument in the proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. If members and senators have done that, they will be pressed to support this legislation. This Bill will overcome the judgments, will prevent the use of parliamentary proceedings in courts in a way in which they should not be used, and will uphold the longstanding interpretation of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. The Parliament needs to act on this matter because we cannot tolerate that degree of judicial intrusion into our proceedings. The Bill I drafted to ensure that parliamentary privilege was adequately protected dealt with a range of matters, which have been taken up, amplified and further developed in a constructive way in this legislation; hence I am able to put aside that part of my Bill and give willing support to the Bill before us. I am pleased that it was the previous President who introduced this Bill because that shows that it is a matter for this chamber and the Parliament. I am pleased that I played a role in that. I stress how important the passage of this legislation is. We have to protect and safeguard the freedom of our proceedings. Legislation which clears away those doubts which have been raised by judicial interpretation is vitally necessary and deserves the support of all members of this chamber and the other place, the media and the people of Australia. This matter should not be looked at as something which concerns only us; it does not. If the freedoms of this Parliament are curtailed in any way, that will essentially mean that the freedoms of our democracy are curtailed. It is important for us as members of this chamber not only to do the work that is necessary but also, at times such as this, to look to the institution itself and to make sure that the institution is able to cope with the pressures which are appearing now and which we can foresee will appear in the future. If we have a belief in the fundamental usefulness of parliamentary democracy, we have to have a belief ultimately that members here will be free to speak their minds fearlessly and without favour. That is essentially what this Bill attempts to do in a codified way. I hope that it will have the support not only of all parliamentarians but also of the media and the people of Australia, because it is they who will lose out if the freedom of Parliament is curtailed. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(6.25) —We are discussing the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, which I welcome because it will codify the penalties which can be imposed upon people who defy parliamentary privilege. Although in 1971 the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privileges asserted that the Senate had the power, for example, to impose fines, this Bill will put it beyond doubt. It re-emphasises that the Parliament will defend its rights and will ensure that the democratic process is followed. That is most important because there are other forces in our community which sometimes impinge on Parliament. This is one way in which the Parliament must preserve democracy. In this legislation the common penalty for breach of privilege is imprisonment not exceeding six months for a natural person, for an individual citizen, a fine of $5,000, or a fine not exceeding $25,000 for a corporation. Those penalties appear in a number of cases. I am particularly concerned with clause 12, which is the essential clause so far as the Senate is concerned, because it relates to the protection by the Senate of its witnesses. This is an absolutely essential matter. I agree with what Senator Macklin said. If we do not defend our witnesses, we will allow the Press or other people who have powerful positions in the community to do as they will. We need to protect witnesses because the nature of Senate committees and other parliamentary committees is that we have to have an inquisitorial style of inquiry if we are to find out the facts, to go below the surface and to know where the skeletons are. It is often necessary to go into camera to protect people who wish to give us information. We should not apologise for using that method because it has been shown to be an effective way when in Australia, and in most advanced countries, so much information is hidden from the public by entrenched economic interests. I have one criticism of the legislation. I believe that the penalty for corporations is far too small. Looking at the courts for precedents, penalties for corporations are too small. On the other hand, there is the penalty of six months imprisonment for managers of corporations who make decisions. That might be a very sobering thought for them when they would otherwise do as they do in everyday life, in this era of cheque-book journalism when companies decide that the matter can be paid for and the fine probably comes off their tax in some way. Although I am concerned about that, on balance it is better that we make it clear to everybody that the rules have changed and that they are reasonable rules. As to the immunity from arrest and attendance before courts provisions, I am very concerned about these because they need further attention. Senator Macklin referred to the 70 years of experience based on the United Kingdom experience. I believe that we now have to make our own rules based on a federal system. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator CHILDS —Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the immunity from arrest and attendance before the courts clause of the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, clause 14. Unfortunately, the tenth report of the Senate Committee on Privileges will not be dealt with until tomorrow. It has been on the list for a number of weeks. In that report the Committee recommends that the Senate give consideration to the alteration of the immunity from arrest and detention clause when dealing with this Bill. In light of the fact that the Privileges Committee report has not been dealt with all I can do is draw attention to some parts of the Committee's report that have a direct bearing on this clause of the Bill. I certainly hope that honourable senators will consider this when they consider first of all the joint parliamentary report on privileges and also the matters that Senator Gareth Evans raised earlier today with the material he placed before us. There is a great potential for law enforcement authorities, using the many statutory and common law offences of a general character, and the large discretions in respect of arrest, the granting of many things including the granting of police bail and the time of first appearance before a court, seriously to impede members of either House of the Parliament in the performance of their duties and to remove members from the Houses for a considerable time, if those authorities are so minded. If we look at the adequacy of the immunity that exists at present it is clear that the immunity of members of the Houses from arrest in a civil cause under section 49 of the Constitution is of limited value, because the scope for a civil arrest of a person under the law as it stands is very limited. There is a much greater danger of the processes of the criminal law being used to interfere with or remove from a House its members. The police have a wide discretion to arrest persons for offences rather than to proceed against them by way of summons. The police may decline to grant bail, and a considerable time may elapse between the arrest of a person and the person's first appearance in court. A court has power to refuse bail, and if bail is vigorously opposed by police it may not be granted. These processes provide great scope for law enforcement authorities to deprive a House of the services of a member and to hinder a member in the performance of a member's functions. A questionable decision by a lower court to impose a term of imprisonment rather than a fine may take some time to overturn on appeal. With a general increase in the number of offences and penalties in the criminal law in recent times there is a possibility of a member being sentenced to imprisonment for a relatively minor offence. There is also the possibility of a member being convicted for a minor offence which nonetheless may bear a penalty of imprisonment of 12 months or more, and the member's seat thereby being vacated. That is perhaps something to which every member should give a great deal of thought. For a relatively minor offence, because of the 12 months or more provision in the Constitution, the member's seat could be forfeited. All of these processes are largely beyond the legislative control of the Federal Parliament. Our federal system means that, just as we are for the first time appropriately addressing the question of privilege, in the same way we must on a later occasion look at the immunity from arrest and attendance before the courts. Those matters are contained in the Privileges Committee report and have a direct bearing on the Bill that is before us. The Privileges Committee report refers to the experience of other countries. In some countries-and there is a long list of countries including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland-particularly some of the democracies of Western Europe, members of the legislature have a limited and/or waivable immunity from criminal process. The Committee believes-as expressed in its tenth report-that the Australian Houses should give consideration to whether their members should be protected by some limited immunity from arrest and detention in a criminal matter. Perhaps members should be immune from arrest except in cases involving violence, disturbance of the peace, or continuing serious harm to the community, so that prosecutions against members would normally proceed by way of summons or equivalent process. Perhaps a remand of a member in custody or a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon a member should be subject to approval by the member's House. So there are a number of approaches that can be taken, but the effect of the report that will be considered by the Senate is that we shall ensure that in our special circumstances we cannot have the Houses being deprived of a senator or member because of the caprice of a statutory authority or the State police in all the ways I have indicated. I do not intend to go any further in dealing with this Bill. It is sufficient that it is indicated that we will have another opportunity when we look at the totality of the privileges package, if I may call it that. Under the circumstances, I am confident in supporting the Bill as it is. However, at a later stage when we consider privileges and the protection of members of parliament from State police or other authorities of that type we should ensure that this is carefully encoded so that everybody knows where he stands. (Quorum formed) Senator COONEY(Victoria)(8.09) —I would like to make a few short comments about the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1986. Some honourable senators have spoken about the need to give protection to members of this chamber, and I agree entirely with that. It is only proper that parliamentarians be able to speak and to speak freely in the interests of the country and to make proper legislation so that the country is properly governed. On the other hand, I think one should be concerned with clause 16 (3) (b), which says that no evidence can be produced in court from any proceedings before the chamber or before a committee to impugn evidence that might be given in a court of law. If a person is threatened with a conviction which he may avoid if he could impugn evidence that is led against him from a particular witness, thereby saving himself from a conviction and perhaps a long term of imprisonment, it is a matter of concern that this Parliament should deny him the right to do that. The necessity of having court cases run properly is illustrated by a further part of this proposed sub-section. For example, in sub-section 16 (6) it is stated: In relation to a prosecution for an offence against this Act or an Act establishing a committee, neither this section nor the Bill of Rights, 1688 shall be taken to prevent or restrict the admission of evidence, the asking of questions, or the making of statements, submissions or comments, in relation to proceedings in Parliament to which the offence relates. That means that if somebody commits perjury before a committee that committee will have to deal with it because, as I understand the way that this Bill proceeds, there is no way that that can be otherwise accommodated. I could understand it if there was some consistency in the Parliament's approach to this, but section 18 of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 provides as follows: A person shall not wilfully give false evidence on oath or affirmation before the Committee. Penalty: Five years' imprisonment. I understand that penalty can be imposed by the courts of the land. So why have we got ourselves into the situation where under this Bill a general provision is made that people will not be able to be convicted in courts for any perjury that may be committed before a Senate committee-although, no doubt, that matter can be referred to the Senate-yet in the case of the Public Accounts Committee Act there is a specific provision that somebody can be imprisoned for up to five years for committing perjury before that committee and that matter will be heard before the courts? In my view that illustrates the difficulty we have in defining how evidence that is led before the Public Accounts Committee-I cannot see that evidence would be led before this chamber, except on very rare occasions-is treated differently than if it is led before a select committee or a standing committee. That illustrates the fact that this Parliament considers that there are exceptions to the general rule that evidence must be protected. It seems to me that if we are going to make exceptions, one of the exceptions ought to be that a person who may otherwise be convicted and imprisoned for a substantial period of time should be able to use evidence that might have been led before a committee to impugn the credibility of evidence that would be brought before the courts. That seems to be overlooked in this Bill. Much has been made of the Bill of Rights which was passed in England in 1688 and which led ultimately to the ascendancy of William and Mary. I think there was an Act of Settlement in 1700. I suppose in some ways 17 March is an appropriate day on which to talk about this. Leaving that aside, the Bill of Rights was very much aimed at protecting the legislature, as it then was, from the Executive. If one looks at the terms and matters set out in the Bill of Rights that becomes quite clear. It says: The election of members of parliament ought to be free. It goes on to say: The freedom of speech and debates of proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament. That affirmation was not designed so much to protect parliamentarians from libel but to protect them from the depredations or the assaults of the Executive or perhaps the judiciary, which was more supine towards the Executive. After the Stuarts had reigned for some time it was a reaction against their claim of their divine rights as kings. Therefore, it seems a little askew, when somebody is threatened with a sentence of imprisonment in a court of law because he cannot impugn evidence, to use the Bill of Rights to avoid that situation. I think it is true enough that this Bill says that evidence can be produced before courts if the House or the committee authorises that to be done, but it seems to me when talking about the division of powers that the courts should not in any way interfere with the legislative process. But by the same token we are here setting up a situation where Parliament can interfere with the judicial process by denying evidence that might otherwise be available to a court and I think that ought to be taken very much into account. It seems to me that there are some inconsistencies in section 16 which ought to be looked at. Why should there be this particular provision in the Public Accounts Committee Act and why should there be exceptions in section 57 of the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth in terms of the interpretation of an Act? Clearly there should be. I agree with that. But with the exceptions I have mentioned-under section 57 where matters are brought before the courts when an interpretation of an Act is in issue and where a breach of the Public Accounts Committee Act is in issue-if there is an ability of the courts to hear evidence, why is there not an ability of the courts to hear other matters? The only other point I want to make is that it seems to me that unless there is some penalty imposed on people who commit perjury before the committees of the Senate, people can say whatever they want to the Senate. People say that the reason we need to have this Bill is to protect witnesses before the Senate, but that protection would allow those witnesses to say whatever they liked because there would be no sanction upon them if they committed perjury. I know of no case that has come before this Parliament where evidence has been led that somebody has committed perjury and has been punished. If this chamber is to be the body that imposes penalties on people who commit perjury, we are again getting into a difficult situation because this Senate, which should fundamentally be a legislative body, becomes a body which is exercising judicial powers. Certainly it has the ability to do that but I think we ought to be very careful about exercising that power. When this Bill goes through the Committee stage people may raise what we will do about people who commit perjury before committees. If we do nothing about it, what sanction is there for people to tell the truth, to be frank and to give those committees the sort of evidence upon which they can rely? In summary, I am concerned about clause 16, firstly, because I think it threatens the liberty of people who cannot impugn evidence that they could otherwise impugn before courts if they had statements or evidence from committees and, secondly, because there seem to be some real difficulties with having people tell the truth before committees where there is no sanction against those who commit perjury except that imposed by the Senate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.20) —I rise to give my general support to the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1986. First of all I thank my colleague Senator Cooney for his great assistance in speaking in the time frame in which he has in the last few minutes. The Bill which comes before us, which was a very distinguished initiative of Mr President McClelland, is one which arises, as other honourable senators have said, from a curious set of circumstances in which two judges of the State of New South Wales, the Hon. Mr Justice Hunt and the Hon. Mr Justice Cantor, had sought to give a very narrow definition of the privileges of the Parliament which had previously always been understood but never expressly provided for. I suppose it is a reflection upon us as a legislative body that in fact we did not do anything about clarifying the privileges of the Parliament until such time as they came under threat by the judgment of two members of the Bench in New South Wales. To that extent I suppose we ought to be grateful to their honours for having precipitated the Parliament into doing something about a situation which clearly we have had the opportunity to address for the last 86 years but have not done so. However, it should not be thought that their honours were alone in terms of giving this narrow definition of privilege, and again as other honourable senators have indicated there have been contrary views on the scope of privileges put by other members of the Bench. For instance, Mr Justice Zelling, speaking as the Acting Chief Justice of South Australia in the case involving the Australian Broadcasting Commission and Chatterton, made the point: In my view, leaving aside what was said in Parliament, nothing that the appellant Chapman said was untrue and could be defamatory of the plaintiff and what was said in Parliament cannot be used to extend the meaning of what was said outside Parliament. That was the clear point which was at issue in the cases in New South Wales, yet His Honour in South Australia, the Acting Chief Justice, made it quite clear that what was said in Parliament could not be brought into discussion in order to extend the meaning of what was said outside the Parliament. Similarly His Honour Mr Justice Carruthers, in the same court as Justices Hunt and Cantor, in fact said that he disagreed with Mr Justice Hunt's view and said: I am unable to adopt the narrow construction of Article 9- that is, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1689)- which he- that is, Mr Justice Hunt- propounds. To that extent therefore I am perfectly happy to see the Bill drawn the way it is and giving an indication that the Parliament regards its privileges as being those which it had historically understood them to be prior to the Hunt and Cantor judgments. I very much agree with what Senator Macklin had to say in relation to the importance of the concept of parliamentary privilege and its very important relationship to the way in which parliamentary democracy in Australia functions. I am very much reminded this evening in this debate of the absence of my colleague the late Senator Allan Missen. This was one of the few issues on which Senator Missen and I profoundly disagreed. Senator Missen was a great believer in winding back and restricting the scope of the privileges of the Parliament. In that I think he was wrong, and I think the view which the former President's Bill, which is now before us, propounds is the correct one. However, I want very briefly-and I have assured Senator Gareth Evans that I will be very brief; I know that he does not in the least bit believe me, but I shall try to demonstrate that at least on this occasion he should-to address myself to proposed clause 8 of the Bill, which reads: A House does not have power to expel a member from membership of a House. I disagree with that. I believe that for a number of reasons, which I will try to deal with very briefly and I hope succinctly, it is important that the Parliament should retain the power to have some capacity to examine the fitness of members to serve in the Parliament if in fact they are convicted of certain offences, and the Parliament believes that as a result they should not continue to sit in this chamber but should be required, if necessary, to seek the re-endorsement, or be compelled at least to subject themselves to the re-endorsement, of their electors at a stage which arises before the normal expiry of their terms. Senator Durack has, during his remarks, indicated the extent to which the Clerk's office, and Mr Harry Evans in particular, have been of assistance to people in gathering material and coming to an understanding of the meaning of this legislation, and I also want to pay tribute to the assistance that I have received from that quarter in getting together some material about expulsions from democratic parliaments which I think are relative to clause 8 of the Bill. As has been said, the House of Representatives has sought to expel only one member, Mr Mahon, who was expelled in 1920. In 1968 the New South Wales Legislative Council moved to expel Mr Alexander Armstrong for conduct which was unworthy of a member of the House, and that involved certain financial and pecuniary matters. The New South Wales Legislative Assembly acted on two occasions, the most recent being as far back as 1917, to discipline its members by expulsion. The Victorian Legislative Assembly has been somewhat adventurous, and although the cases relate mainly to the previous century, some six persons have been expelled from it. In 1968 the Tasmanian Legislative Council moved to expel or to declare vacant the seat of a member of that Council, as a result of certain contractual arrangements which had been entered into between the member and the Crown contrary to State law. The House of Commons has been a little more adventurous. It has proceeded on a number of occasions to expel people. I would not want to go back to the days of Wilkes and the famous North Briton case, in which Wilkes was sent back to the electors of Middlesex on three or four occasions for his attacks upon the Crown; the electors of Middlesex on each occasion returning Wilkes to the House of Commons because they had made judgment in those particular matters. But in more recent times the House of Commons has acted against persons who were convicted of such offences as the fraudulent conversion of property, acceptance of payments for disclosure of party deliberations of members and, in 1954, forgery. The United States has been even more robust. It has expelled a number of members in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, including some famous cases, such as that of Representative Adam Clayton Powell in 1967. The Canadian House of Commons has on three occasions caused members to be expelled. I believe that ultimately we are faced with a very difficult situation here. The power of a House of the Parliament to decide that the conduct of a member has been sufficiently unworthy that he or she ought to be expelled from the Parliament and given the opportunity, unless he or she is likely upon his or her expulsion to be committed to a term of penal servitude, of being reassessed by his or her electors as a result of some proceedings, some conviction or some determination by the proper judicial authorities of this country, is a power which ultimately the Houses of the Parliament ought to retain. I do not believe in putting out of our power entirely the right to expel a member of the Parliament if the conduct of that parliamentarian is so clearly unworthy that it would bring the Parliament into the gravest contempt if that person were allowed to continue as a member of the Parliament, or indeed if the Parliament and the privileges of the Parliament were used as a shield which allowed that person to escape the consequences of the judicial system that otherwise might be visited upon him or her were he or she to be an ordinary citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia and not a particularly protected person by virtue of membership of one of the Houses of the Federal Parliament. Therefore, when the Committee proceeds to vote on the clauses of the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, I will record my vote against clause 8. Other than that, I am happy to give the legislation my support and I congratulate those who have been involved in its drafting. I pay tribute to Mr President McClelland for having taken the initiative to bring this piece of legislation before the chamber. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(8.31) —I am also happy to be associated with the Parliamentary Privileges Bill and I certainly add my congratulations to the former President on his initiative in introducing it to the Senate. I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege when it dealt with this matter. That Committee's rather extensive report has been referred to. I just want to draw attention to some of the comments that former Senator Peter Rae and I made in minor dissension from some elements of the report. We made the general comment: Now that the Committee has abandoned any notion of making sweeping changes to the law of parliamentary privilege, such as complete statutory codification and transfer of the contempt jurisdiction to the courts, we do not consider that it is advisable to be making alterations to lesser matters, particularly when there are no existing difficulties or problems to be overcome by such alterations. We also refer to several other matters. It is very difficult to codify parliamentary privilege. Once one codifies matters relating to parliamentary privilege, a certain amount of inflexibility is introduced and I do not think that that should be the spirit of legislation of this character. However, matters have been dealt with in the Bill, which I think will be an advantage. In the last paragraph of our dissenting comments on the report we said that we felt that it was inadvisable to make references to the courts. I know that that has been excluded in most of the Bill anyway. Initially there was some suggestion that we ought to hand over quite a lot of responsibility to the courts. We were concerned about the matter and largely we were satisfied with the report. Another thing that I was anxious about was the question of members of the general public or public servants being referred to, as has happened in the past, under privilege in the Senate or in the House of Representatives and having no right of appeal. I notice that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has tabled some proposed resolutions. I hope it is his intention to proceed with No. 5, headed `Protection of persons referred to in the Senate', which states: (1) Where a person who has been referred to by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Senate, makes a submission in writing to the President: (a) claiming that the person has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person; and (b) requesting that the person be able to incorporate an appropriate response in the parliamentary record; if the President is satisfied: (c) that the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous or vexatious as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Committee of Privileges; and (d) that it is practicable for the Committee of Privileges to consider the submission under this resolution; the President shall refer the submission to that Committee. That is a very important matter to be considered and I hope that in due course the Minister will make some provision for that in the context of the Bill if that is the way that we should proceed. It is quite unfair that members of the public-I have heard this happen on occasions-and of the Public Service can be referred to in a way that casts some doubt upon their character and integrity. In one particular instance, reference in the Senate to a firm caused that firm financial embarrassment and in fact financial loss. I make that comment and I know that the Minister will recognise my concern because I raised it repeatedly with witnesses in the course of the Joint Select Committee's inquiry. I will leave it at that. I congratulate Harry Evans and thank him for the help that he gave me and other members of the Senate. I also thank the Minister at the table, who was also very helpful throughout the inquiry. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.37) —I thank honourable senators for their very thoughtful contributions to this debate. It is a matter of considerable gratification to all of us who have been concerned with this issue of privilege over the years to see this measure come forward and gain so much obvious support in this place. There have been very many long-standing concerns over a great many decades about the way in which privilege law and practice have operated in this Parliament. We seem to have had a congenital inability to develop, to clarify, to codify to the extent necessary, or at least to systematise, our law and practice in relation to privilege. We have relied essentially on that provision in the Constitution that makes our privilege rules essentially those that were frozen in time at the turn of the century in the English House of Commons. There have been many examples of concern about the way in which those laws, practices and rules have operated. I suppose the most spectacular case was the Browne and Fitzpatrick case in the 1950s. More recently, a much more trivial case but one very disconcerting for a number of people who were concerned about a possible misuse of parliamentary privilege was the Laurie Oakes case, that example of alleged defamation of parliament that created so much elaborate putting into motion of this very elaborate privilege machinery of ours with results that were pretty problematical in terms of their contribution to the dignity of the Parliament. The Parliamentary Privileges Bill makes a number of very significant contributions to the process of rationalising the law of privilege. Perhaps most important of all its provisions is the abolition of the category of contempt involving defamation of the Houses or their individual members-the kind of matter that was in issue in the Oakes case and in many others over the years. Another is the statutory codification of the penalties which may be imposed by the Houses, which clarifies what has long been almost inherently uncertain. There is also the abolition of the power of expulsion of members, which upsets Senator Puplick. All I can say here is that I do quite fundamentally disagree with his approach to this provision. I strongly endorse the justification for abolition which is spelt out in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. Perhaps at the Committee stage we can take that debate a little further rather than stop to deal with it now. Basically, I think the argument that is summarised in one paragraph of the report really is the nub of the matter. It is summarised particularly in that part of paragraph 7.94 which is in the following terms: . . . the fact that the only case in federal history- that is a reference to the Mahon case- when the power to expel was exercised is a case when, we think, the power was demonstrably misused is a compelling argument for its abolition. That is, of course, not the only argument for abolition; others are set out in the report as well, notably the existence of sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution, which make provision for a member being unable to continue sitting if found guilty of various specified criminal offences. There is the consideration of democratic principle that these matters ought ultimately to be matters for the electorate which votes people into this place rather than for those of us who are fortuitously here ourselves. Finally, I suppose, is the fact that the Houses have wide powers anyway to discipline members in ways falling short of expulsion. As I said, in a nutshell they are the matters that exercised the Committee and they are the reasons that appeal very much to me to retain this particular provision but we can, I suppose, debate that further if necessary in the Committee stage. This Bill also requires specification of the `cause' or the reason, to translate the medieval expression, of any penalty of imprisonment imposed by a House and makes provision for the consequent review of that by the courts. That is perhaps giving more of a role to the courts than some people would have wished and giving significantly less of a role to the courts than others have argued for. It is essentially a compromise provision and one, I think, that makes sense for the reasons that were well articulated by Senator Durack in his contribution to the debate. There is provision in the Bill for uniform qualified privilege in relation to parliamentary proceedings, clarifying some of the multiple uncertainties which have existed about that. There is a code of statutory protection of witnesses, which no doubt needs to be supplemented in other ways I will mention in a moment. It is there in its basic form in this Bill. There are provisions relating to the limitation of the duration of available immunities from civil arrest and compulsory court attendance. That matter was adverted to by Senator Childs in his contribution. That may need some further consideration at a later date in the context of that Privileges Committee report but I think it is pretty uncontroversial, at least in the limited form in which this provision is cast in the Bill at the moment. In addition to all these matters, the Bill deals, as most speakers have noted, with another very important matter and that is the proper interpretation of Article 9 of the 1688 Bill of Rights, which was given an extraordinarily wide interpretation by Mr Justice Hunt in the New South Wales Supreme Court case. It is a very difficult issue and I can understand some of the concerns that have been expressed by Senator Cooney and others about the dangers in readopting, as this Bill does, a very traditional view of the extent of Article 9 protection. I for one have been much exercised by this particular issue since it came to prominence and I for one was concerned about a potential overreach of the traditional interpretation, but I have been persuaded, for reasons that I am happy to spell out in more detail at the Committee stage if it becomes an issue, that however much one twists and turns and tries to confine or narrow the scope of this matter in some of the ways that Senator Cooney indicated it is almost impossible-in fact I think it is impossible-to find some principled basis on which to do that in a way that will not create more anomalies than are involved in the retention of the traditional protection. It is, I believe, very important-and most members of parliament would believe it is very important-to retain untrammelled the privilege that we in this Parliament enjoy of speaking our minds fearlessly and freely and not facing the consequences of court challenge, harassment or cross-examination, let alone prosecution, as a result of it. That privilege of course conveys with it many responsibilities. Perhaps one of the things we ought to emphasise more in the future in talking about privilege is some of the concomitant responsibilities to exercise our free speech in a responsible way and certainly in a way that is not irresponsibly to the detriment of the reputations of individuals. This point and others are dealt with, as Senator Jessop acknowledged, not so much in the context of this Bill but in the context of other recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. As Senator Jessop said, earlier in the course of this debate I tabled a set of draft resolutions put down as a basis for further debate. It is important that in this debate on this Bill we bear in mind that this Bill, for all the topics that it deals with, still deals with only one small corner of the area of parliamentary privilege. It certainly does not attempt to be any kind of complete or even partial codification of the law and practice of privilege. There are many other issues that are the subject of Joint Select Committee recommendations and that need to be picked up and dealt with. Some of those matters are procedures for committees generally in protecting witnesses, procedures for the protection of witnesses specifically before privilege committees, matters to be taken into account in considering contempt matters, matters to be taken into account by the President in determining the precedence to be given to contempt matters, the protection of persons referred to adversely in the Senate-a matter to which Senator Jessop referred-and the kinds of matters which constitute contempt. It is proposed that we have a resolution articulating these matters not in the form of a codification, not in the form of anything limiting, but nonetheless constituting guidance for the community at large. Other matters are procedures for raising matters of privilege, the kind of notice that ought to be required for contempt motions to be moved, guidelines for members of parliament in exercising their privilege of free speech in such a way that is responsible, procedures for reference to Senate proceedings in court proceedings and requirements for consultation between the Privileges Committees of the two Houses. It will be appreciated from simply that recitation of the list of headings for draft resolutions that a great many issues are possibly ultimately, as Senator Macklin said, best dealt with by legislation but for present purposes they are not so dealt with in the Bill now before us but are put aside for debate, hopefully in the not too distant future, on another occasion. The Bill before us is the subject of one small set of proposed amendments which I want to foreshadow at this stage. They are the product of some further thought and consideration by the consultant draftsman, Mr Charles Comans, and deal in particular with clause 7 and the definition of penalties and the limitations that are appropriate should, God forbid, either House of Parliament ever pursue the ultimate penalty of imposing a term of imprisonment. I simply foreshadow that. I hope those matters will be uncontroversial in the Committee stage. Honourable senators have had circulated to them a copy of Mr Comans's opinion and the draft amendments. The opinion explains the reasons for the amendments. I hope as a result people will not be caught unawares when we reach those amendments. The final thing I want to say is that the Bill before us now is the product of the effort over a very considerable period of a number of people whose contributions to this exercise ought to be acknowledged. First of all are the members of the Joint Select Committee on Privilege, who considered this matter over a long and difficult period of investigation and discussion and who reported in 1984. In particular I wish to acknowledge and applaud the contribution of the Chairman of that Committee, John Spender, the honourable member for North Sydney, who almost single handedly brought that report to fruition, especially in the period after the change of government when I, as Deputy Chairman of that Committee, was certainly unable to give it any great time or attention in the very difficult but important stage of bringing its recommendations and conclusions together. I think nearly every other member of that Committee, including those who have spoken in this debate, such as Senators Macklin and Jessop, made very substantial and helpful contributions to its deliberations, as did other honourable senators. I refer to Senators Durack and Haines, who were much involved in the discussion of the issues. Senator Durack is not even listening to me complimenting him; he does not believe it. Senators Durack and Haines were much involved in the consideration of these issues over the past couple of years when they came up in one guise or another. Their very level-headed, sensible and intelligent contributions so far have much aided the way in which the debate has been conducted in this place. Like others, I also want to acknowledge and applaud the role played by the former President of the Senate, Doug McClelland, whose Bill this is, for this willingness to grasp the nettle, in conjunction with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mrs Child, and bring the Bill forward and lend the stature of his office and their offices to it. The fact that the Bill has come forward in this way has helped a lot the atmosphere in which it has been debated on this occasion. Finally, I wish to thank again, as others have, the officers of the Parliament who worked both at the committee stage, while the Joint Select Committee was preparing the report, and more particularly during the drafting of the Bill itself and the subsequent resolutions which will be debated on a later occasion. I think that it is appropriate for me to add my particular thanks for the role played by the new Deputy Clerk of this place, Harry Evans, who has been a tower of strength, knowledge and judgment in the whole development of this very complex, sensitive and difficult area. I would also like to mention in that respect Charles Comans, the former chief Parliamentary Counsel, who went well beyond, I suspect, the scope of his formal consultancy in the kind of effort that he put into drafting, coming to grips with and wrestling with these very difficult and sensitive issues and doing so in a way that I think gets it about as right as these things ever can be got when so many people have so many different views. Let me wind up by saying that I hope that the mere bringing forward of the Bill and, in particular, the debating of it in the atmosphere in which we have been able to debate it so far is a sign of a new maturity on the part of the Australian Parliament when it comes to dealing with issues of privilege. It is an excellent start to a task that still has some little distance to go, and it will result in our bringing about a rationalisation, a development, a systematising and a clarification of the law and practice of privilege in a way which is very long overdue and in a way which ultimately this Parliament will be very proud. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 6-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 7 (Penalties imposed by Houses). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.54) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause (7), after subclause (1), add the following subclauses: ``(1A) A penalty of imprisonment imposed in accordance with this section is not affected by a prorogation of the Parliament or the dissolution or expiration of a House. ``(1B) A House does not have power to order the imprisonment of a person for an offence against the House otherwise than in accordance with this section. ``(1C) A resolution of a House ordering the imprisonment of a person in accordance with this section may provide that the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires, is to have power, either generally or in specified circumstances, to order the discharge of the person from imprisonment and, where a resolution so provides, the President or the Speaker has, by force of this Act, power to discharge the person accordingly.''. (2) Clause 7, at the end of the clause, add the following subclause: ``(5) A House may give such directions and authorise the issue of such warrants as are necessary or convenient for carrying this section into effect.''. Rather than speak to the amendments, since the document in question has been circulated in the chamber, I think that at this stage it would be sufficient for me to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, as an explanation of the amendments, the opinion prepared by the consultant draftsman, Mr Comans, which I think amply explains the justification for these essentially technical amendments. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES BILL 1986 Opinion I have been asked to provide my opinion on the following questions: ``Does clause 7 of the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1986, having regard to clause 5, have the effect of abolishing the power of each House of the Parliament to commit a person to custody- (a) as a penalty for a period of time not extending beyond the current session of Parliament; or (b) to coerce the person to end a continuing contempt, e.g., a refusal by the person to produce a document required to be produced by a committee?''. Question (a) I take it that question (a) refers to the possibility that the powers preserved by clause 5 would authorise the committal of a person, by way of penalty, for an indeterminate period terminating at the end of the session, or for a period exceeding 6 months but ceasing upon the earlier ending of the session. Each House appears, at present, to have those powers. I note that, according to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 20th edition, page 134, the practice of the House of Commons is not to commit offenders for any definite time, but the House is considered not to have the power to commit a person for a period extending beyond the session. It would appear that each House of the Commonwealth Parliament could at present make a similar indeterminate committal. In my opinion the answer to the question is in the affirmative. In my view the words ``not exceeding 6 months'' in clause 7 amount to an express provision, for the purposes of clause 5, limiting the penalty of imprisonment that may be imposed for any conduct which is an offence referred to in sub-clause 3 (3). The Bill must be read as a whole, and it would be unreasonable to attribute to Parliament an intention that clause 5 should have the effect of allowing a limit deliberately stated in clause 7 to be exceeded. The matter could, however, be more explicitly, and therefore more certainly, dealt with by amendment of clause 7. In considering whether clause 7 should be amended, there is another matter of some importance that needs to be considered. I gather that it was the intention of the Joint Select Committee, and of the sponsors of the Bill, that a period of imprisonment imposed in accordance with clause 7 should not be terminated upon the ending of the current session within the period. It could be argued on behalf of a prisoner that it was a fundamental feature of the previous law of privilege that imprisonment by a House ceased at the end of the current session, and that, having regard to clause 5, clause 7 should be read as subject to the continuance of that principle. I suggest that it would be unwise to leave open the possibility of this argument being raised. I therefore suggest that consideration be given to the amendment of clause 7 by the insertion of sub-clauses on the following lines: ``(1a) A penalty of imprisonment imposed in accordance with this section is not affected by a prorogation of the Parliament or the dissolution or expiration of a House. ``(1b) A House does not have power to order the imprisonment of a person for an offence against the House otherwise than in accordance with this section.''. Question (b) In my opinion the power of the House of Commons, and the corresponding power of the Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament, to use committal as a means of coercing a person is an aspect of the power to commit as a penalty for contempt, in that the committal is a penalty for a contempt already committed, although the intention may be to secure the ultimate performance of an act or the discontinuance of conduct. I am therefore of the opinion that this power would become exercisable under clause 7 and the 6 months limit contained in that clause would be applicable. Any doubt on this matter would, however, be removed if the sub-clause (1b) suggested above were included in clause 7. Clause 7 could be used for coercive purposes as well as purely punitive purposes. If the person concerned resumed the contempt after the fixed period of committal, I see no reason why the House could not take fresh action against him. However, as mentioned below, it would seem necessary to ensure that a ``coercive'' committal could be terminated when its object was achieved. Release from imprisonment The possibility of imprisonment by a House continuing after the end of a session or even while the House is dissolved seems to me to raise a difficulty, particularly as regards to a person imprisoned for a coercive purpose. I suggest that there should be some means whereby a person could be released before the end of the fixed term of imprisonment. In my view a House would, under clause 5, have the power to order the release of a person undergoing imprisonment for a fixed period for contempt. However, obviously this power could not be exercised when the House was not sitting (whether or not it was still technically ``in session''), or was dissolved. One possible way to meet this difficulty would be to include in clause 7 another sub-clause on the following lines: ``(1c) A resolution of a House ordering the imprisonment of a person in accordance with this section may provide that the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires, is to have power, either generally or in specified circumstances, to order the discharge of the person from imprisonment and, where a resolution so provides, the President or the Speaker has, by force of this Act, power to discharge the person accordingly.''. This sub-clause has been drafted in such a way as to attract the provisions of the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965. Warrants etc Although clause 5 may be adequate to preserve existing powers and procedures regarding the implementation of penalties, I suggest that a sub-clause in clause 7 on the following lines may be useful: ``(5) A House may give such directions and authorise the issue of such warrants as are necessary or convenient for carrying this section into effect.''. (C. K. Comans, Q.C.) Consultant Draftsman to the Senate 4.2.87 Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8 (Houses not to expel members). Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.55) —I do not want to repeat at any length the comments which I made about the clause during the second reading debate, nor do I think it particularly profitable to enter into a long discussion with Senator Gareth Evans on the matter. The views on both sides have been expressed. I hope that I have expressed my view as cogently as possible. Senator Evans has relied on the comments made in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which appear at paragraph 7.94. I quote part of that Committee report: The Mahon case focuses on the danger inherent in the present system-the abuse of power by a partisan vote. This danger can never be eradicated and the fact that the only case in federal history when the power to expel was exercised is a case when, we think, the power was demonstrably misused is a compelling argument for its abolition. If the test of parliamentary privilege were that it was demonstrably misused, we would be introducing a piece of legislation to abolish parliamentary privilege altogether. It seems to me to be a quite false argument to say that we had one occasion, certainly in very extraordinary circumstances, when the power was misused and therefore the power must be withdrawn in toto. After all, we are all conscious of and accept that from time to time members of both Houses of this Parliament and of many other parliaments where privilege is akin to ours misuse the privilege which is given to them. There is no magic in that. There is quite clear concern on the part of many people that people whose names are taken in vain, whose reputations are sullied or traduced in the chamber under the guise of privilege, do not necessarily have the rights of redress that many people would like to see available to them. But that does not lead us, as a logical consequence, to seek to wind back the privilege. In fact, what we are doing in the legislation is entrenching the privilege, including the privilege which we know has not been used in an entirely appropriate fashion from time to time. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the case is made out for removing from the Parliament the ultimate right to make judgment about the conduct of its members and, as I say, to extend in a legislative form a privilege or a potential privilege, a potential protection, to individuals because they are members of parliament which would not be available to them in relation to the laws of the land and the proceedings of the judiciary of the land and which would not encompass them were they citizens who were not members of parliament. I therefore persist in indicating that I do not believe that clause 8 of the legislation should be passed. I appreciate the strength of argument which is put contrary to that. I understand the principles upon which that contrary position is argued. I merely say that I have a right to assert a view on this matter, just as Senator Evans and Senator Durack have. Senator Durack indicated his support for clause 8 and he put his reasons very cogently. I happen to disagree with him. I happen to be persuaded that the power should continue to reside in the chambers themselves. Consequently, I will record my vote one way or the other against clause 8. I do not believe that a great deal will turn upon it in the historical analysis. I do not think that it will be a matter that at some stage people will suddenly find that perhaps they have made the greatest mistake in the history of the Australian Federal Parliament. Nevertheless, it is a power that I am not persuaded that the Parliament should abandon. Therefore, I do not intend to support this clause of a Bill which otherwise has my wholehearted support. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.59) —I wish to speak in support of clause 8. The emphasis in the paragraph of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege from which Senator Puplick quoted was on the fact that that was the only time the privilege was used. The example that he gave, particularly the one regarding freedom of speech, is used every day. In my contribution in the second reading debate I tried to present an argument that the vast bulk of the time that privilege is used and used well. I agreed with him that it is occasionally abused. In fact, one cannot have any privilege without its being abused on some occasions. This particular privilege-that is, the ability to expel a member-has only ever been used once. I think that most people who review the history of that particular sorry case are led to the almost inevitable conclusion that a gross miscarriage of justice occurred on that particular occasion. However, the argument that I find more compelling is that a person is elected either to this chamber or the other chamber in a thoroughly democratic manner. It is really up to the people of the country to decide whether that person should remain, provided, of course, that he is still acting within the bounds of the other sections of the Constitution; that is, that he has not committed an offence which attracts a prison sentence of longer than 12 months. I draw to Senator Puplick's attention that there are some fairly celebrated cases. Indeed, in the last elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States of America there were a couple of quite celebrated cases of people who had committed a variety of offences most of which, one would have thought, would have been tossed out by the electorate in no uncertain terms. These particular people, for whatever reason-whether it be the quirky sense of humour of their electorates or their notoriety-established themselves firmly with the people as being worthy of attention. Whatever it was, they were returned by the electorate. A democratic election put them back in. If those couple of items I am thinking about happened to be addressed in this chamber they would probably have led-certainly if this had been an active use of a privilege-to their expulsions. I think we need to look at whether this power ought to remain there. I suppose the final argument is that it is a rather extraordinary power given the fact that in any chamber there is always a majority opposed to that particular individual. In this chamber that is probably almost always the case. No matter what group one is in, majority can be mustered against one and, depending on how things operate with the coalition parties, in a couple of weeks time there may even be a larger range of commutations and permutations available to us to gather majorities against any particular individual person. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the House to retain that privilege any longer. It might have been a useful privilege in a non-democratically elected House such as the House of Commons over a vast period. I think in a very democratic House such as this, or the House of Representatives, it really ought to be seen as an obsolete privilege, one which is no longer necessary in the control of the members and that now can be safely left to the electorate to exercise its will on at regular occasions in regular elections. I would prefer to leave it that way. I think our Federal Constitution has sufficient checks and balances still in it to control any errant member and I believe that the powers to suspend or in other ways to discipline a member ought to be sufficient. I really cannot envisage a case where an item of sufficient gravity still manages to fall outside the 12-month period set down in the Constitution. It is for those reasons that I strongly support clause 8. I hope that the electorate in general will see that that is a move of the House to take away some privileges for itself, to refine much more the essential privileges of this Parliament. That is a privilege which we can do without. In that case I think we should do without it. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.05) —In my speech in the second reading debate I referred to the dissent by former Senator Peter Rae and me to several aspects of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to which we referred earlier. Our objections covered half a dozen or so points. Five have been dealt with and have been modified. As far as I am concerned, I am satisfied with the Parliamentary Privileges Bill in respect of those five matters, but the last matter deals with expulsion of members. I can do no better than to read the comment dealing with our dissension. We stated: In our view there is no justification for abolishing the powers of the Houses to expel members. The contention that the House of Representatives abused the power on one occasion is no reason for its abolition. It is irrational to say that the Houses can be trusted with their powers in relation to contempts but not with this power over their own members, which may be used by the Houses in extreme cases to rid themselves of members whose activities seriously obstruct the Houses' operations. I believe that is a valid comment. It is an extremely rare occasion when that course of action by the Houses of Parliament would be necessary. I completely support what my colleague Senator Puplick has said in respect of that clause. I would like my name to be recorded as voting against it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.07) —While respecting Senator Puplick's and Senator Jessop's arguments and position on this matter, I can only repeat my very strong view that this is a power that not only has not been exercised with justification in the past; it is also one that, for a whole variety of other reasons, is not defensible and we can well do without it. Given the fact that Senator Puplick has troubled to spend some little time laying out his position on this and that Senator Jessop has read into the record his and Senator Rae's dissenting reaction on this particular matter, I think it might assist the record and avoid perhaps the very undesirable phenomenon of my speaking at length again on this point were I simply to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that section of the Joint Select Committee's majority report which explains in some detail the arguments for clause 8 in its present form. I am referring to the section relating to the expulsion of members which runs from page 121 through to page 126 of the Joint Select Committee's report. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Expulsion of Members 7.83 The most drastic of sanctions available against Members is expulsion. 7.84 May describes the power to expel in these terms: ``The purpose of expulsion is not so much disciplinary as remedial, not so much to punish Members as to rid the House of persons who are unfit for membership. It may justly be regarded as an example of the House's power to regulate its own constitution. But it is more convenient to treat it among the methods of punishment at the disposal of the House''.29 7.85 Over the years, Members of the Commons have been expelled for a variety of reasons.30 These include being in open rebellion (in 1715), forgery (1726), perjury (1702), frauds and breaches of trust (1720), misappropriation of public money (1702), conspiracy to defraud (1814), fraudulent conversion of property (1922), corruption in the administration of justice (1621), corruption in the administration of public offices (1711), corruption in the execution of duties of Members of the House (in 1667, 1694 and 1695), conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman (1796 and 1891), and contempts, libels and other offences committed against the House on various occasions. The last occasion when the House of Commons exercised its power to expel was in 1954 when Mr P. A. D. Baker was expelled following his conviction on a number of counts of forgery. A somewhat more notable case of expulsion occurred in 1947. The offender was a Mr Allighan who was found guilty of a grave contempt. Mr Allighan had written an article for a newspaper in which he claimed some Members of the House of Commons were paid-in money or in kind-for leaking information. Ironically, the Privileges Committee found Mr Allighan guilty of the practice he had imputed to his colleagues. It said ``In the case of Mr Allighan, this contempt was aggravated by the fact that he was seeking to cast suspicion on others in respect of the very matter of which he knew himself to be guilty, and that he persistently misled the Committee''.31 The publishers of the newspaper in which these allegations were printed were summoned before the Bar of the House and severely reprimanded. 7.86 The United Kingdom has no written constitution. In that country persons may be disqualified from serving in the Commons either by reason of what they are, or by reason of what they have done. The first category includes certain members of the clergy, peers, minors, and persons disqualified by office or service. The latter category includes persons found guilty of corrupt or illegal practices at parliamentary elections (who are disqualified for various periods according to the nature of the offence either for the constituency for which the election was held or for any constituency) and persons convicted of treason (who cannot be elected or sit or vote until they have suffered the allotted or any substituted punishment or have been pardoned). Until recently it seems to have been the law that persons convicted of other offences, and regardless of the nature of the offence or punishment exacted, were not by virtue of that fact disqualified from being elected to or sitting in the Commons. Where a Member was convicted of such an offence it was for the House to judge whether he should be expelled. Now by force of the Representation of the People Act 1981, persons who are sentenced to be detained or imprisoned indefinitely or for more than one year for any offence are disqualified, their election or nomination is void, and the seat of any Member who becomes so disqualified becomes vacant. The disqualification is limited to the period whilst a person is (or should be) detained. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983 a candidate personally guilty of a corrupt practice is disqualified from election for the particular constituency for ten years, and disqualified from election for any constituency for five years. 7.87 In Australia the position is different. Our Constitution provides specifically for qualifications of Members (by s. 34) and for disqualification (by sections 44 and 45). 7.88 Under section 44 a person is incapable of being chosen for sitting as a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives who is under any acknowledgment of allegiance; obedience or adherence to a foreign power; is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power; is attainted [convicted] of treason; has been convicted of any offence punishable under the laws of the Commonwealth or of the States by imprisonment for one year or longer (emphasis added); is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; holds any office or profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the public service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a Member and in common with the other Members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons. 7.89 By section 45 if a Member of the House of Representatives: becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in section 44; takes the benefit whether by assignment, composition or otherwise of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State, his place thereupon becomes vacant. Sections 39 and 69 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act contain some further detailed provisions as to qualifications and disqualifications relating to sitting as a Member in either of the Houses. It is unnecessary to refer to the details of these provisions. 7.90 It will be seen that the Constitution makes detailed provision for disqualification from being or remaining a Member of Parliament. The provisions embodied in sections 44 and 45, and their automaticity of operation, should be contrasted with the position in the United Kingdom. In particular conviction of any offence punishable under laws of the Commonwealth or of a state by imprisonment for one year or longer has the effect of disqualifying forever the person so convicted, regardless of the length of any prison sentence given to him, and notwithstanding that no sentence of imprisonment may have been imposed. 7.91 We earlier pointed out that on one occasion only has the power of expulsion been exercised by the Federal Parliament. The year was 1920, the House the House of Representatives, and the expelled Member Mr Mahon. On Thursday 11 November, 1920, Prime Minister Hughes moved, as a matter of privilege: ``That, in the opinion of this House, the honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, the Honourable Hugh Mahon, having, by seditious and disloyal utterances at a public meeting on Sunday last, been guilty of conduct unfitting to him to remain a Member of this House and inconsistent with the oath of allegiance which he has taken as a Member of this House, be expelled from this House.''32 The Prime Minister had moved speedily as the speech in question had been given by Mr Mahon on the Sunday before the motion was put. It was a speech at a public meeting on Richmond Reserve, Melbourne. In it, Mr Mahon had expressed sympathy for the Irish Republicans and opposition to British policy in Ireland. At the meeting a motion reportedly had been put and passed censuring the actions of the British Government and urging that Australia break its ties with Britain and constitute itself a republic. At this distance it is not possible to establish precisely what Mr Mahon said. Apparently he had had an accident shortly before the expulsion motion was proposed. He did not attend to answer the expulsion motion, and in those days the House did not have a Privileges Committee. No considered attempt was made to put before the House material for its examination. Assertions, and counter-assertions, were made. The Prime Minister said that he had ``affidavits,'' (more likely they were statutory declarations) from four journalists who had been at the meeting. He declined to read them and relied only on one passage from one affidavit which recorded Mr Mahon as saying: ``The worst rule of the damnable Czars was never more infamous. The sob of the widow on the coffin would one day shake the foundations of this bloody and accursed Empire.'' According to the Prime Minister this statement was completely corroborated by the other three affidavits. From the Prime Minister's long and passionate speech it seems that this statement, coupled with an attack on ``those who are now obeying the orders of the King'' who, so the Prime Minister said, were described by Mr Mahon as ``thugs and murderers'', constituted the gravamen of the charge. Mr Mahon, he said ``cannot attack the Empire and yet be loyal to his oath of allegiance''. Taking the worst view of the case against Mr Mahon, his actions did not, we think, amount to a hanging matter. But the House thought otherwise. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tudor, moved an amendment to the motion to omit all words after ``That'', and substitute: ``this House, whilst being opposed to all sedition and disloyalty and the subversion of constitutional means for the redress of grievances, is of opinion that the allegations made against the Honourable Member for Kalgoorlie, the honourable Hugh Mahon, should not be dealt with by this House for the following reasons: (a) The allegations made against the honourable Member do not concern his conduct in Parliament or the discipline of Parliament. (b) That Parliament is not a proper tribunal to try a charge of sedition arising from the exercise of civilian rights of free speech at a public assembly of citizens. (c) That the judicature is especially established and equipped and has ample power under the law to bring any person to public trial for the offence of sedition alleged against the honourable Member. (d) that every citizen so charged is entitled to a public trial by a jury of his peers, where he would have the right to exclude by challenge biased person, from the jury panel, and that this fundamental principle of British justice should not be departed from in this case.'' 7.92 The matter was debated and the amendment defeated. When another amendment was about to be moved the debate was gagged and the Prime Minister's motion carried in a division on party lines. A subsequent resolution declared the seat vacant. In the by-election which followed Mr Mahon stood for re-election; he was defeated. 7.93 Looking back to the Mahon case one is struck by these features: the speed with which the motion was brought on; the limited time for debate; the haste in which such an important matter was determined; and the vote on party lines. 7.94 The Mahon case focuses on the danger inherent in the present system-the abuse of power by a partisan vote. This danger can never be eradicated and the fact that the only case in federal history when the power to expel was exercised is a case when, we think, the power was demonstrably misused is a compelling argument for its abolition. But the argument for abolition of the power to expel does not depend simply on the great potential for abuse and the harm such abuse can occasion. There are other considerations. Firstly, there are the detailed provisions in the Constitution. In short, we already have something approaching a statutory code of disqualification. Secondly, it is the electors in a constituency or in a State who decide on representation. In principle, we think it wrong that the institution to which the person has been elected should be able to reverse the decision of his constituents. If expelled he may stand for re-election but, as we have said, the damage occasioned by his expulsion may render his prospects of re-election negligible. Thirdly, the Houses still retain wide powers to discipline Members. Members guilty of a breach of privilege or other contempt may be committed, or fined, (if our recommendation on this point is accepted). These sanctions seem drastic enough. They may also be suspended or censured by their Houses. 7.95 The most notorious expulsion case of recent times was the expulsion, in 1978, by the Indian Lok Sabha of Mrs Gandhi. The Lok Sabha invoked its penal powers on the basis that, so it was claimed, she had, in common with other persons, committed a breach of privilege and contempt of the House, inter alia, by causing obstruction, intimidation and harassment of officers collecting information for an answer to a question. She also refused to take an oath or make an affirmation before the Privileges Committee and allegedly cast aspersions on the committee. It is well known that Mrs Gandhi survived this temporary fall in her political fortunes. 7.9 While we have found it a troubling question, our view is that the balance of the argument favours the abolition of the power in the Houses to expel Members. The contrary view may be put by saying that if Parliament can be trusted with its powers in relation to contempt, the Houses should retain the power to expel their own Members. It may be argued that our view relies on one occasion when it appears the power was misused by the House of Representatives. Although the Mahon precedent is hardly encouraging, our conclusion on this matter does not rest on that case but rather on considerations of the general and worrying potential for abuse, on the specific constitutional provisions in Australia to which we have referred, and on the basic consideration that it is for the electors, not Members, to decide on the composition of Parliament. We therefore recommend: Clause agreed to. Senator Puplick —Mr Chairman, could I avail myself of whatever procedures are formally available to have the Hansard record formally my vote against clause 8 of this legislation. Senator Jessop —I formally record my vote against clause 8 of the legislation. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(9.10) —On behalf of Senator Button, I move: That the Senate adopt the following resolution relating to the registration and declaration of Senators' interests, such resolution to continue in force unless amended or repealed by the Senate in this or a subsequent Parliament: 1 Declaration of Senators' interests (1) That, within 28 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation as a Senator, each Senator shall provide to the Registrar of Senators' Interests a statement of- (a) the Senators' registrable interests; and (b) the registrable interests of which the Senator is aware (i) of the Senator's spouse; and (ii) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Senator for support, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the Senate and in a form determined by the Committee of Senators' Interests from time to time, and shall also notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar within 28 days of that alteration occurring. (2) Any Senator who- (a) knowingly fails to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Senators' Interests by the due date; (b) knowingly fails to notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar of Senators' Interests within 28 days of the change occurring; or (c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Senators' Interests, shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the Senate and shall be dealt with by the Senate accordingly. 2 Registrable interests That the statement of a Senator's registrable interests to be provided by a Senator shall include the registrable interests of which the Senator is aware (a) of the Senator's spouse; and (b) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Senator for support, and shall cover the following matters: (i) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies; (ii) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (A) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest, and (B) in which the Senator, the Senator's spouse, or a child who is wholly or mainly dependent on the Senator for support, is a trustee (but not including a trustee of an estate where no beneficial interest is held by the Senator, the Senator's spouse or dependent children), indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust; (iii) real estate, including the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned; (iv) registered directorships of companies; (v) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interests and the activities of the partnership; (vi) liabilities, indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned; (vii) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; (viii) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned; (ix) the nature of any other assets (excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5,000; (x) the nature of any other substantial sources of income; (xi) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources, provided that a gift received by a Senator, the Senator's spouse or dependent children from family members or personal friends in a purely personal capacity need not be registered unless the Senator judges that an appearance of conflict of interest may be seen to exist; (xii) any sponsored travel or hospitality received; (xiii) membership of any organisation; and (xiv) any other interests where a conflict of interest with a Senator's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. 3 Register and Registrar of Senators' Interests That- (a) at the commencement of each Parliament, and at other times as necessary, the President shall appoint an officer of the Department of the Senate as the Registrar of Senators' Interests and that officer shall also be Clerk to the Committee of Senators' Interests; (b) the Registrar of Senators' Interests shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the Committee of Senators' Interests, maintain a Register of Senators' Interests in a form to be determined by that Committee from time to time; (c) as soon as possible after the commencement of each Parliament, the Chairman of the Committee of Senators' Interests shall table in the Senate a copy of the completed Register of Senators' Interests and shall also table from time to time as required any notification by a Senator of alteration of those interests; and (d) the Register of Senators' Interests shall be available for inspection by any person under conditions to be laid down by the Committee of Senators' Interests from time to time. 4 Declaration of interest in debate and other proceedings That, notwithstanding the lodgment by a Senator of a statement of the Senator's registrable interests and the registrable interests of which the Senator is aware (a) of the Senator's spouse; and (b) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Senator for support, and the incorporation of that statement in a Register of Senators' Interests, a Senator shall declare any relevant interest- (i) at the beginning of his or her speech if the Senator should participate in debate in the Senate, Committee of the whole Senate, or a Committee of the Senate (or of the Senate and the House), and (ii) as soon as practicable after a Division is called for in the Senate, Committee of the whole Senate, or a Committee of the Senate (or of the Senate and the House) if the Senate proposes to vote in that Division, and the declaration shall be recorded and indexed in the Journals of the Senate or Minutes of Proceedings (as applicable) and in any Hansard report of those proceedings or that Division: Provided that it shall not be necessary for a Senator to declare an interest when directing a question seeking information in accordance with Standing Order 98 or 98A. I make the following comments on behalf of Senator Button: Until today no requirements have been made of senators to disclose publicly the private interests which they hold. It is right and proper that they should do so. The public and the electors of this country are entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives, to know that members of the Government will perform their duties without fear or favour and to be reassured that a member's private interests, whatever they may be, do not conflict with his or her public duties in holding the office of a member of the Government. With those beliefs in mind the Australian Labor Party has long held the view that public disclosure of the private interests of members is appropriate. In September 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a statement to the House of Representatives at the time he presented copies of the statements Ministers had provided to him concerning their private interests. The Prime Minister informed the House that the Government proposed that a similar requirement should be made of all members and senators. He proposed that they should disclose their own private interests and that the precise arrangements for this should be established in the Standing Orders of each chamber. On 9 October 1984 the House of Representatives adopted a resolution to be effective from the Thirty-Fourth Parliament requiring each member within 28 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation as a member to provide to the Registrar of Members' Interests a statement of, firstly, the members' registrable interests; and secondly, the registrable interests of which the member is aware of the member's spouse and also of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the member for support. The House proceeded to consider this matter ahead of the Senate-some considerable time ahead of the Senate-and on 13 September last year it adopted a resolution. Firstly, it reaffirmed the requirement for the registration and declaration of interest of members' spouses and dependent children adopted by the House on 9 October 1984; secondly, it made amendments to certain matters requiring registration; thirdly, it required the House of Representatives Committee of Members' Interests to determine a form for the registration of interests by 10 April 1986; fourthly, it determined that each current member was required to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests by 30 June 1986; and, fifthly and finally, it resolved that any member of the House of Representatives who knowingly fails to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests by the due date, knowingly fails to notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar within 28 days of the change occurring, or knowingly provides false and misleading information to the Registrar shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and should be dealt with by the House accordingly. This resolution was amended by the House of Representatives in October 1986, with the main change being that statements were required to be lodged only once in the life of each Parliament. Motion No. 3 is the first motion which goes into matters of policy. What this is all about is that the Senate adopt arrangements relating to the registration and declaration of senators' interests in identical form to the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on 9 October 1984, subsequently amended on 13 February 1986 and 22 October 1986. Motion No. 4 is to adopt a new standing order for the Senate in identical terms as the House of Representatives standing order 28a which was adopted by the House on 9 October 1984. This standing order would establish a committee of senators' interests with the same terms of reference as the current House of Representatives Committee of Members' Interests. The House of Representatives Committee's report of its operations for 1986 tabled in the House on 23 February this year indicates that the requirements for declarations have been implemented with no significant difficulties. Motion No. 5 sets out the requirement for the proposed committee of senators' interests to determine a form for registration of senators' interests and proposes that each senator will provide a statement of interests by 30 June 1987. This motion also includes an additional aspect whereby failure to provide a statement or the provision of false and misleading information in a statement will be considered as a serious contempt of the Senate to be dealt with accordingly. This reflects the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on 13 February 1986 and is a necessary step to ensure that the requirements are met by all senators. I have given a full description on Senator Button's behalf. I am now delighted to see that he is in the chamber to handle this matter for himself. I commend these motions to the Senate. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.16) —Before I commence my remarks on this motion moved by the Government, could I ascertain whether the Government is dealing with these three motions cognately? Are we having separate debates on them or what? Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to debate them cognately. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Is leave granted to debate the motions cognately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator DURACK —We are setting precedents. Cognate debates are being decided upon in the middle of the debate, but Senator Evans seems to be in a slightly harassed state of mind, so I suppose it is understandable. Senator Button —It happens to the best of us, Senator, even you. Senator DURACK —Never. With both the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Manager of Government Business (Senator Gareth Evans) in the place we might have expected some efficiency, but I suppose that is too much to expect. The Opposition approaches this motion moved by the Government about the disclosure of pecuniary interests with the greatest cynicism we can command. We have very good cause for doing so in view of the fact that the Government is full of the most righteous rhetoric on this subject, but its performance has dismally failed. The colleagues of the two Ministers in the chamber at the moment, the Leader of the Government and the Manager of Government Business-the latter is trying to escape as fast as he can-have revealed this. The Minister remaining, Senator Button, would have to have the greatest intestinal fortitude imaginable to stay here and seriously advocate to the Senate the desirability and wisdom of these motions. The Government is proposing, with all the sanctimony we have learned to expect from certain of its members, particularly from Mr Dawkins, the Minister for Trade, and the Leader of the Government in the Senate- Senator Walters —And Mr Keating. Senator DURACK —And Mr Keating and Mr Campbell, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. We have had from them the most nauseating sanctimony one could ever imagine. The Government maintains that it will be able to make its members honest by passing these motions. The Opposition takes very seriously the question of conflicts of interest in the course of the duties of a member of parliament. We think it is of such fundamental importance that each and every individual senator and member should accept personal responsibility. We know perfectly well that this Government does not believe in personal responsibility; it has never heard of the concept of personal responsibility. The Minister for Resources and Energy, the failed Attorney-General of this Government, who has just walked out as fast as he can, believes that passing legislation fixes everything up; that people are made good by passing laws and the more laws are passed, the better people become. People with a little more experience of life, morality and politics would know that simply passing laws does not make people good or responsible and does not make better members of parliament; but the Government is deeply attached to the function of passing laws and resolutions to tell people how they should behave. There is a very fundamental issue in this piece of nonsense that the Government has introduced, slavishly following whatever the Caucus tells it to do. It has to do whatever the left wing and other elements that the Australian Labor Party seems to follow slavishly tell it to do, so we have this absurd resolution which will make us all better and more honest and honourable parliamentarians. The resolution says that a whole lot of pecuniary interests and liabilities must be disclosed. This is a very fashionable view which has been around for some years now. If we are to be serious about this sort of thing, I would have expected that one of the fundamental things required to be disclosed would be the value of the interests and liabilities one has. Of course, that is too much like elementary common sense for this Government to entertain it for one minute. We do not have to say what anything owned is worth or what any liabilities amount to in dollars and cents. We can satisfy this resolution by saying that we have shares in Invicta Group Industries Pty Ltd or, closer to home, indirectly in Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Like Senator Button, one can be a director of a company which has shares in BHP but one does not have to disclose that. Senator Button —And have a pecuniary interest. But you do not understand that, do you? Senator DURACK —Senator Button does not understand anything about responsibility, companies or the moral standards that he is trying to impose. No wonder he does not understand that; that is too simple for him to understand. Then we have the question of liabilities. I would have thought that one of the most serious matters is that a senator may be subject to pressure, influence-or corruption. I must not use that word, because the Government does not seem to think about that. One may owe a lot of money to somebody and that money may be owed on a short term arrangement. In this day, under this Government, we have the highest interest rates that have ever been imposed on the Australian electorate, where interest rates commonly are 20 to 22 per cent. A lot of farmers owe money at those rates of interest under this Government. If one owes even a moderate sum of money, with the interest rates of this Government, one may be in considerable trouble and subject to considerable pressure. But under this resolution that does not have to be disclosed. One does not have to say how much is owed, what interest is being paid, what the term of the loan is, or whether the loan is repayable on demand or in 10 years time. This is the hypocrisy of this Government under these rules. Yet virtually nobody on the Government side is here tonight to defend this hypocrisy. The Leader of the Government, who is here, was the director of a company owned by some union or other that he happened to be associated with, or acted for, or something or other. He disclosed that he was a director of this company; he disclosed all that he had to disclose. He complied. Senator Button is a great example of compliance with rules. He complied with the rules which were laid down by him and his colleagues, and he is supported by two Government senators in this chamber tonight. That company had a very large holding in BHP at a time when there was a serious debate in this country about the takeover of BHP, which was the subject of legislation which was considered by the Government and the Parliament. Yet that interest held by the Leader of the Government in the Senate did not have to be disclosed by him. What value is there in any requirement of disclosure if that does not have to be disclosed? Then we have a much more egregious Minister than Senator Button; we have a notable, or perhaps I should say infamous, character in this Government-namely, the Minister for Trade, the honourable member for Fremantle, Mr Dawkins. Fortunately for us he does not reside in this chamber, for which we should all be thankful. Mr Dawkins was one of those holier-than-thou characters of this Government, particularly when he was in opposition. We remember Mr Dawkins's moral homilies some years ago when he was in opposition. Mr Dawkins was very shocked by the bottom of the harbour schemes. Senator Button —Bottom of the drawer. Senator DURACK —He was very shocked by all that. Senator Button —We were all shocked by that. Senator DURACK —I did not hear much shock from Senator Button. Despite his rather wimpish efforts in those debates, I did not really perceive much shock from him. Mr Dawkins was very shocked by all this. Then it turned out that he had an interest in a family company. He had to disclose the interest in the family company, but he did not have to disclose the fact that the family company had an interest in other companies which had benefited from bottom of the harbour schemes. Mr Dawkins was knocked for six by a man of whom this Government makes a great deal of fun, namely, the honourable member for O'Connor, Mr Tuckey. Mr Tuckey was able to reveal the total hypocrisy of one Mr John Dawkins, the honourable member for Fremantle, about all that. But Mr Dawkins's record is not confined to that. I referred to Senator Button and BHP, but a much more serious matter than Senator Button's involvement in BHP occurred about a year ago when the egregious Mr Dawkins was appointed by the Government to head a Cabinet committee to look into the whole question of the BHP takeover. When that Committee met Mr Dawkins went to great pains to explain to all the members of the Committee how they had to disclose their interests. He said that the disclosure of their interests was very important. He gave them a great homily in his usual sanctimonious style, but he failed to tell anybody that as a beneficiary under his mother's will he stood to inherit shares in Bell Resources Ltd worth some $200,000 or $300,000. He failed to tell anybody about this, despite the homily he was giving his colleagues, despite the disclosure of interest requirements of this Government. The egregious Mr Dawkins did not tell anybody about his interest. Maybe it is not a pecuniary interest as such but by any commonsense standard, by any honourable standard of any honourable man, Mr Dawkins should have disclosed his interest in the whole issue of the takeover of BHP by Bell Resources. But there was not a word from Mr Dawkins in relation to that matter. Then we had the case of one of the honourable men of the Government, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) himself, no less a person than the Attorney-General, the man responsible for the administration of law and justice in this country. There is a requirement for the disclosure of interest by Ministers. Mr Bowen disclosed an interest in a family company which had some exotic name which I do not think is of any relevance. So the Deputy Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, if that is his name-I am not too sure about these things; Senator Button seems to have lapses of memory-disclosed an interest in a family company. But there is no requirement here to say what the interests in the family companies are. One can have a family company worth millions of dollars or with millions of liabilities and one does not have to disclose it. I suppose the piece de resistance of all is the efforts of a very minor and insignificant figure in this whole ramshackle outfit that masquerades as a government, namely the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. What is the name of the member for Kalgoorlie? Senator Michael Baume —Graeme Campbell. Senator DURACK —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie, the most eminently forgettable member of this outfit. When all this conflict of interest nonsense came in Mr Campbell made representations on behalf of some gentleman who approached him for an interest in an abattoir which the Western Australian State Government was going to sell. Apparently these representations did not succeed, which is not surprising, but he received a gift of 100,000 shares worth $20,000 in the company owned by the person for whom he had made representations. Mr Campbell hung on to those shares. He disclosed that he held 100,000 shares in this company. These were given to him in compensation for the fact that he made representations on its behalf to the Western Australian Labor Government of Premier Burke. Senator Walters —What standards! Senator DURACK —What standards! He just disclosed that he had the shares; he did not say how he got them. He was not required to say how he got them. He got them as a pay-off for making representations to the Government. Senator Walters —This is the mob that is talking about morals. Senator DURACK —Yes, this is the mob. We have talked about Senator Button, the egregious Mr Dawkins, Mr Campbell, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen. We have had many examples of cases in which conflicts of interest may or may not have applied and in relation to which these rules have no relevance, no significance and no effect whatsoever. These show the hypocrisy of this Government, and the wimpish, slavish following of fashion about a conflict of interest disclosure. When we were in government we took this matter fairly seriously and we appointed a committee to inquire into it under the chairmanship of the Chief Judge of the Federal Court, Sir Nigel Bowen. Sir Nigel Bowen's committee made a very valuable report which not only the Fraser Government acted upon but also this Government has acted upon. The recommendations of that committee keep on cropping up in legislation time and time again. The heart and soul of that recommendation which the Fraser Government accepted, and which is so obviously common sense and moral sense-of which this Government has no understanding-requires that when people in this place and in the other place speak on a matter before the chamber they have to disclose possible conflicts of interest. That is the point when conflicts of interest matter; it is not passing some motion which has no relevance whatsoever. This requirement says that a person has to focus on what possible interest he or she has in a matter before the chamber or-unlike Mr Dawkins-that a person has to disclose it at a Cabinet meeting or a Cabinet sub-committee. There could be no more disgraceful performance, no more disgraceful conflict of interest, or failure to disclose a conflict of interest, than Mr Dawkins who was a Cabinet member, the chairman, the convener-what was he? Does Senator Button remember? Senator Button is probably too uninterested to worry about it. Mr Dawkins was the convener of the Cabinet sub-committee on this whole question of the propriety of the Bell Resources takeover of BHP-a matter of the most enormous public significance to this country about this time last year. Mr Dawkins was so moralistic, so self-righteous, and such a total prig, that he told his own colleagues how they had to disclose their interests, but he did not disclose that he was in fair shape to inherit $200,000 worth of shares in the takeover company, Bell Resources. Perhaps Senator Buton was one of those colleagues-I do not know. Perhaps he was not significant enough to be put on the Committee-I do not know. Perhaps he was. I notice that he is very silent about this. Why did Mr Dawkins not disclose? These rules do not require him to disclose a most vital matter. Senator Walters —He is not going to defend his colleague. He is keeping very quiet. Senator DURACK —Of course. He cannot defend him. How they keep him I do not know. He must have some mesmeric influence that escapes me. To think that he would be kept in any government, even Mr Hawke's Government! There is really no substance in these resolutions. I have shown that they will achieve nothing. The Government has put them forward but does not even believe in them. It cannot defend them. They cannot work and they have not worked. Senator Reid —They are like Priority One. Senator DURACK —They are like Priority One: Young Australia and so many other subjects of this Government. Yet we are being asked to pass these resolutions. As far as the Opposition is concerned, we will let them pass. Despite the total hypocrisy with which they have been brought in and despite their total ineffectiveness, we will comply with them. As we have already seen, we will see that they will be of no use whatsoever in making anybody honest who is not prepared to be honest. They will be of pathetic nuisance value to those who have to go through this ludicrous charade which this Government thinks is some form of good government. There is one aspect of these rules and regulations which is totally at variance with all the rhetoric of the Government-sex equality, equal opportunity for women and so on. That was pointed out to honourable senators opposite by the wife of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, one of their own colleagues. This resolution requires senators and members to disclose the interests of their spouses even though their spouses may have their own careers and may have assets earned by their own efforts which have nothing whatever to do with them. Members and senators are required to disclose the interests of their spouses about matters or interests totally acquired by their spouses' own efforts and totally unrelated to members and senators. We have all the mouthing hypocrisy of this Government about sex equality, yet here is a classic example where women who have their own careers and have made their own way must have those matters disclosed, even though they are of no relevance whatever. As I said, even one of the Ministers of this Government has failed to disclose and will not disclose certain interests. Although I am not an admirer of Mr Brown, at least he has a better understanding than Senator Button or the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, of these matters. Where is Senator Ryan? We have not seen her for a long time. I suppose we will not see her again after her great contribution to the Senate last time we sat. Where does Senator Ryan stand on this? Does she support this? What about all the sisterhood? Not one of the sisterhood is over there. Where are they all? Are they going to disclose what the assets of their spouses are? Is that consistent with all the rhetoric and hypocrisy of this Government about equal opportunity for women? Senator Michael Baume —Senator Ryan is expressing a lot of interest, but it is generally interest rates. Senator DURACK —Yes, but she does not know much about that either, according to the Government. Senator Siddons —Senator Ryan is a very busy senator. Senator DURACK —Busy at what? Senator Siddons —Running the Education Department. Senator DURACK —Yes. I do not think there is much more that I can say about this. This is an absolutely magnificent example of the priorities of this Government-the priorities of the smokescreen, of irrelevance and of hypocrisy. That is what the Hawke Government's trademark is-total rhetoric and hypocrisy over and over again to a nauseating extent. This particular resolution is the high point of this Government's contribution to the government of this country. It is the greatest example I have seen of how rhetoric and hypocrisy have totally taken over sound commonsense judgment and sound government. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.45) —I wish to speak very briefly in this debate. I begin by thanking Senator Durack for his support of the motions, and the Government very much appreciates it. Senator Walters —Is that how you interpret it? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator said that the motion would not be opposed, and I would like to thank him for that because I think that is important. I am quite grateful for that, but I do want to make a couple of comments about what he had to say because although it was not the best speech I have heard Senator Durack make in this place it was certainly the worst. One would have expected some serious contribution to the debate. It is not sufficient for Senator Durack to come in here to tip buckets, as may be his wont in Western Australia but it has not been here, because he is not very good at it. He might have made some contribution to the issue. Let me first of all put it into perspective. It is not an issue which is beyond serious debate and consideration. Senator Durack —It is your resolution that is beyond serious contribution. Senator BUTTON —Now, Senator, none of the bottom drawer stuff. It has been the subject of serious debate and resolution and rules of the House of Commons, of the United States of America Congress and of various State parliaments in Australia. I am talking about the general topic. It is a fact that in 1975 a committee of this Parliament was appointed on which such luminaries from that side of the House as Mr Killen, as I recall it, Mr Peter Nixon and others recommended unanimously a scheme for registration of pecuniary interests of members of parliament. It is a matter about which Liberal Party of Australia politicians and National Party of Australia politicians in the past have given very serious attention and consideration and have made recommendations to this Parliament which, for reasons which I do not assail, the Fraser Government of which they were members decided not to adopt. The point I am simply making is that it is a serious issue and has been regarded as a serious issue by that committee of the Parliament, by the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest and by the House of Representatives Committee on Members' Interests. In addition, from time to time it has been the subject of some discussion at the Standing Orders Committee of the Senate, at which meetings constructive contributions and suggestions have been made. But here Senator Durack, I think the shadow Minister for Resources and Energy, made a speech tonight in which he said that the Opposition will not oppose the legislation but in which he offered not one constructive suggestion about its possible improvement. Senator Durack —There is no improvement possible in it. Senator BUTTON —Is that right? The point I am trying to make is that that would not be a view accepted by some of his colleagues in the past who have sat on these committees and made recommendations. The saddest thing about Senator Durack's speech was that he confused a number of issues in his own mind. He confused the question of a registration of members' interests with the whole question of conflict of interest. I do not think he understands the notion of conflict of interest. Conflict of interest arises where a member has an interest of a pecuniary kind which is likely to affect his judgment in the carrying out of his duties. That is what it means. Senator Durack, in order to put his mudhook in that slimey barrel which he used tonight, ignored those considerations altogether and ranged over a wide range of issues which have nothing to do directly with the question of conflict of interests. He gave a number of examples of that. Of course the real revealing thing about Senator Durack's speech-I do not want to go into the record of the Fraser Government in respect of these matters as it would take some time-- Senator Durack —It's a lot better than yours. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator is on record in regard to the bottom drawer. I would not interject like that, old son. The fact of the matter is that if one did that it would contribute nothing to the matter which is now before the Senate. It would just contribute to a further disrespect for the profession which we all attempt to follow. But the real bottom line of Senator Durack's speech tonight was his references to the Opposition, to people such as himself, having more experience of morality and politics than those in the present Government. According to Senator Durack, the present Government has no moral sense. Of course that is what he is offering to the people of Australia in the next election, is it not? He is offering people such as himself, who have a moral sense-I do not know whether that is a result of an accident of birth, or what-and experience of government. What sort of experience of government would he offer to the Australian people? All his problems in opposition at the moment are related to the fact that most of the people who had been political supporters of his party or had been involved in politics for a long time knew his Government was no good. The Premier of Queensland knew the previous Government was no good. Senator Durack —Can you give a couple of moral examples? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator should read today's paper. Senator Walters —We don't cash in our airline tickets and try to take our kids with us like Brown and his wife did. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters might not have been listening to the point I was making a minute ago. I could entertain her with example after example of that sort of thing being done during her period of government. I do not condone it and I do not think there is any point in having a mud sling about that, as Senator Durack did. The question is whether we can arrive at a better set of rules in respect of the disclosure of pecuniary interests of members of parliament. As I have said, many Liberal parliamentarians and National Party parliamentarians have in the past been prepared to contribute to that debate. The point I was seeking to make before I was interrupted by Senator Walters was that, as Sir Robert Sparkes said this morning: `We want a better government in Canberra. We do not want one like the Fraser Government again'. I am not making any judgment about Sir Robert Sparkes's morality or anything like that. Senator Walters —At least Fraser had standards, which is not what you have got. Senator BUTTON —Oh, indeed! Losing his trousers in Memphis I suppose was the best demonstration of the standards to which the honourable senator refers. The honourable senator should not provoke me about this sort of thing. If that is the standard the honourable senator espouses and supports, let the people of Tasmania hear about it. Senator Michael Baume —But what do they think about you? Senator BUTTON —Senator Baume too should let the people of New South Wales know that he supports that. They know him as a waste watcher but the only waist he does not watch is his own. The point I am making is that this is the source of many difficulties for the Opposition at the present time. It is extraordinary that we have an Opposition here which makes no effort through its principal spokesman on this issue to contribute to improving this system-and I concede, quite frankly, that it could be improved. That is what we, as parliamentarians, ought to be concerned about. I promised Senator Macklin that I would not speak for long if I took advantage of the few minutes available. Senator Walters —What are you doing about improving it? Senator BUTTON —At this stage we are trying to get a system in the Senate which is complementary to the system which the House of Representatives adopted. If both Houses can work at that question of improving the legislation I would certainly welcome it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.55) —Tonight we are debating three propositions with regard to pecuniary interests. The Australian Democrats have always supported the declaration of pecuniary interests, not only within the parliamentary structure but also, where it is pertinent, outside, for example with regard to the electoral Acts and the declaration of the interests that people have in terms of the donation of money to political parties and to election campaigns. However, we do have quite a number of concerns with these amendments. I propose to go through the types of concerns that we have as to the operation of how this declaration of pecuniary interests is to be carried out because I think there are problems with the suggestions that are put here. The types of problems I wish to raise tonight are not new. They have been raised in the various debates that we have had to date. I acknowledge the difficulty that Senator Button has had, particularly in the way that these various proposals have been referred backwards and forwards through the Standing Orders Committee and the difficulty of actually coming up with a set of proposals. My assumption has been that in the moving of these particular motions Senator Button was seeking to open the debate and was not necessarily averse to changes if in fact the changes could be seen to be beneficial and would make a system of declaration of pecuniary interests workable and effective. I took the comments that he made just now in fact to refer to that. I will go through some of the problems that we have with this. First, paragraph 1 (1) (b) states: the registrable interests of which the senator is aware (i) of the Senator's spouse; . . . That immediately raises the problem here of under what heading should the senator's spouse actually have to declare anything? When one raises the issue of the declaration of pecuniary interests one obviously is talking about the necessity for an elected member of parliament to declare his interests; that is, those interests which an elected member of parliament has that might be seen to raise a conflict of interest. I understood Senator Button to make a distinction between a pecuniary interest and a conflict of interest. He was emphasising the conflict of interest that a person may have in terms of speaking in a debate or, more particularly and more importantly, in terms of voting; that is, a person may be voting in a way that advantages him. It does seem to the Australian Democrats that the electorate is entitled to know, when a person votes or speaks, what that person's interests might be in the affair if they are interests such as could be seen to influence him in some way. However, the senator's spouse, or the spouse of the member of the House of Representatives, is not in fact elected to parliament and does not stand for election. As an example, my wife said to me: `Look, I have never stood for public office. I have no intention of standing for public office. I do not see why my particular interests ought to be disclosed.' Conflict immediately comes in when that point is raised. I believe it is a very valid point, and we ought to consider it seriously. My wife is not in business-she is at home looking after our children-but there are many senators and members of the House of Representatives whose wives or husbands are in business of their own, in a commercial operation, and they may not wish to have those particular interests disclosed. In fact it may be considerably commercially disadvantageous to have certain of those interests disclosed. Leaving that issue aside, what about the issue of the senator or member who may move his interests in some way into the hands of his spouse for the purpose of avoiding disclosure? There is immediately a problem of getting this operationalised in an effective way. Another issue that I raise relates to spouses. Senator Harradine is not here at the moment, but we all know that we have had a series of debates in this place about de facto spouses. I imagine that Senator Harradine will be in here shortly with my having raised that issue. It is an important issue. Various legislation recognises de facto arrangements. A de facto relationship is normally defined in legislation as a continuing operation, a continuing relationship, which is of a permanent nature. Under those circumstances, surely if such a person is eligible for various benefits from government or covered under a variety of taxation measures-de factos are recognised in legislation on both of those issues-it would be as possible and as likely, if a de facto relationship is seen as a permanent relationship, for a senator or a member of the House of Representatives to move his pecuniary interests into the hands of his de facto spouse as easily as into the hands of a spouse and thereby avoid this item. But, while a spouse is mentioned, a de facto is not. So again there is a loophole, an inconsistency, that arises with the practical application of this measure. I am particularly concerned that a spouse may be disadvantaged commercially. This has not been addressed here but I believe that it should be addressed. There are means by which it could be addressed. I believe that the various members' spouses and senators' spouses who have spoken out publicly on this matter have spoken out on a position of principle. They are not accountable to the general electorate and I do not believe that they should be held accountable to the general electorate. Sometimes spouses do not acquiesce with good grace to their spouses going into public life. In many cases they would be quite happy if their spouses were not in public life because of the problems that that gives them and their families. I do not believe that they should be lumbered with an additional burden which is not of their making, which is not of their choosing and which could be a major detriment to them. That has not been addressed here and I believe it should be addressed before we proceed with this item. Likewise, children are not defined. I presume that `children' means the offspring of a senator or member, but that is not defined. What does it mean? I will move a motion at a later stage to see whether we can get some answers. I will seek leave to move that further consideration of these matters be undertaken in Committee so that we can get some toing and froing and more specificity on this. To me, the normal definition of child is an offspring of no relevant age. Quite frankly, I think this is extraordinary. I presume it means a dependant, not a child. A dependant is different from a child. I would like to know what definition is used of children. For example, under a perfectly acceptable Oxford dictionary definition of `child', I am a child of my parents, regardless of my age. Age is not incorporated into the normal definition of `child'. I believe we should be referring to dependants, not children. The problem may not arise with dependants. However, there are some problems. Let us not forget that, if we are talking about children, we must know whether we are necessarily talking about natural children or adopted children, or as some senators and members have, foster children. Senator Newman —The children of the household. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Newman refers to them as the children of the household; yes. I imagine all honourable senators know that some senators and members are indeed supporting and looking after people in their families who are not their natural children, foster children or adopted children. We need some clarification of that item. Quite frankly, I do not believe that a child who is an adult ought to be caught up in this operation for the same reasons that I gave relating to spouses. I believe it is an imposition on someone who has never sought public office, is not in public office and who therefore ought not to have to bear those types of impositions of public office. I am quite happy for those in public office to bear them but I do not believe that those who are not in public office should have to bear them. Paragraph 1 (2) is a matter of some interest in relation to the previous debate that we had on the matter of privilege in that it relates to how we deal with somebody who knowingly makes a false statement. Presumably we will have to work out whether the person knew or did not know about the matters involved. Let us not forget that this relates not only to what members or senators did not know in terms of the statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Senators' Interests but also to matters included under paragraph 4. I presume that Senator Button is looking at those items that appear under paragraph 4 to be included under paragraph 1 (2) (c), that is, that `knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Senators' Interests' would indeed cover those items in terms of a declaration of interest in debate and other proceedings. Senator Button —Yes. Senator MACKLIN —Right. If that is the case, we have a very real problem, as I will try to suggest when we get to paragraph 4, with the normal operations of this chamber. Indeed, any senator who fails to comply with those provisions `shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the Senate and shall be dealt with by the Senate accordingly'. Quite frankly, a serious contempt of the Senate is a pretty high misdemeanour. As I have seen in the various operations of the Privileges Committee over the years in terms of the Senate, when the Senate finally winds itself up to state that something is in serious contempt, that presents great difficulties. The Senate does not often get to the point of saying that something is seriously in contempt. Generally it says that there is contempt. But some of the matters are very important. For example, one Privileges Committee report stated that something was in mere contempt in terms of disclosing information prior to a report coming into the Senate. It said that the provision of information that had been heard in camera by a committee of the Senate was mere contempt. But we are not talking about those matters, which to my mind were pretty serious infringements of the privileges of the Senate. Here we are talking about a serious contempt, so it is pretty heavy stuff. I am not at all sure what is intended by that. I believe it is fair to honourable senators that we spell out in more detail what we mean by a serious contempt. Honourable senators ought to know what they are up for in terms of suspension or fines. If the Parliamentary Privileges Bill that we have just debated is accepted by the other place, we will have in legislative form some spelling out of these items, but not in sufficient detail. Considering the debate that we have just had, it would be fair and reasonable to spell out in detail what those items might be. I now move on to paragraph 2, headed `registrable interests'. I do not wish to deal with this in detail at the moment. Most of the provisions are self-explanatory. However, I find the inclusion of some of them rather questionable. For example sub-paragraph (xii) refers to `any sponsored travel or hospitality received'. I believe that is an extraordinarily wide definition. I suppose sponsored travel could be seen as an air fare for which we would probably have a ticket, or something of that sort. Quite frankly, the next point `any hospitality received' really bowled me over. I really believe that the soup that I once provided to Senator Button ought not to have to be disclosed. The thing is a farce if in fact that is what we-- Senator Button —We used a long spoon, I think. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, I remember that. I think we really ought to do a little tidying up on the whole notion of hospitality received. Goodness gracious! We may go out to friends. Last Saturday evening my daughter had a birthday party at my parents-in-law. My father-in-law is a pharmacist. In the course of conversation we discussed pharmacy matters. People tend to discuss politics or pharmacy or whatever their professions are. We discussed some matters bearing on some legislative operations that will come up later in the session. Could it be construed that I was being offered hospitality with a view to lobbying me about items that would be raised later in the session? That is a farce but it could be construed in that way. It was hospitality received, but the hospitality I received related to my daughter's birthday. Those other matters were incidental. I do not want something on the books that will be so wide open to possible abuse or so wide open that those people who wish to make a correct declaration will wonder whether any hospitality should be declared or only hospitality worth more than $100, $200 or whatever. I think we can specify such things. It is a simple matter. It should be specified rather than having the very odd requirement concerning `hospitality received'. In (xiii) is a reference to membership of any organisation. It is not said whether the organisation is incorporated or otherwise. Again I suggest that that is an utter farce. A whole host of organisations incidentally receive funds from government. Again I use a purely personal example, because I think that this is the type of thing that every senator has to look at in his own personal life. I belong to a local scouting group. Scouts actually receive tax deductibility as a charity under the Income Tax Assessment Act. Hence there is a possibility that when we deal with a taxation Act in this chamber it could involve that organisation. We have only a small group. We are still struggling to get along. We have just established a new den. This whole thing is a farce. What type of organisations are we talking about? We should specify those organisations. Having the requirements in relation to `any organisation' will clutter up the Register with a whole host of incidental, non-important matters which could not possibly have a bearing on any legislation. However, the declaration requires that any organisation be stated because there could possibly be the remotest conflict of interest-a conflict of interest that could not possibly have any bearing ultimately on how one would vote, or not vote. I jump quickly to No. 4. I wish to refer to some matters under No. 3 but I hope I will be able to go back to those at a later stage. No. 4 is headed `Declaration of interest in debate and other proceedings'. This is a matter that I feel will get very difficult for many back bench members of parliament. I do not know whether they have actually looked at this. There are not many in the chamber tonight. I hope those who are not in the chamber will look at the Notice Paper to look at Notice of Motion No. 3 under the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). They are about to be hit with a requirement which will be pretty onerous for most back benchers. I single them out and I think people will understand why shortly. The requirement reads: (i) at the beginning of his or her speech if the Senator should participate in debate in the Senate, Committee of the whole Senate, or a Committee of the Senate. . . Senators may be dealing with an item in a debate in any of those categories. People may say that that is fair enough and that if someone contributes to a debate he knows what it is about. That is a question mark at the best of times. Senator Robertson —That is not always the case. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, I was about to qualify that. I think we could readily agree that they ought to know and if they do not it is their problem. They ought to know what the Bill is about and if they speak in the Committee of the Whole they ought to be conversant with its various clauses. However, the next requirement reads: (ii) as soon as practicable after a Division is called for in the Senate, Committee of the whole Senate, or a Committee of the Senate . . . if the Senator proposes to vote in that Division- I ask honourable senators to ponder on that. Let us take the case of a Government member. Being in government, he will have many things on his plate. He may be chairman of a committee. The division bells may ring and as a dutiful Government member he will come into the chamber and vote with the Government. However, we all know that some honourable senators would be hard pressed to know precisely what it is that they are voting about. Senator Elstob —Oh, come on! Senator Colston —Come on! Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry to offend the sensibility of honourable senators on the Government side. Perhaps I should refer to the Opposition. I seem to be upsetting honourable senators on the Government side. I am putting the position very mildly. Some honourable senators might not be totally up with what is happening at the moment. Senator Newman —I thought that was a Democrats problem. Senator MACKLIN —No, I exclude the Democrats because we are the only ones who have to know what we are voting on. The back benchers are not called upon to know what the legislation is. That goes for members on the back benches of all political parties in this place. I believe it would not be a way of getting out of the problem for an honourable senator to say that he did not know what he was voting on when he came into the chamber to vote. To be guilty of a serious contempt, an honourable senator must act knowingly. I do not believe that an honourable senator could argue that he did not know what he was voting about in this place. I do not believe that would be acceptable either politically-- Senator Colston —It would not be acceptable to their constituents. Senator MACKLIN —That is right; it would not be accepted politically. I do not even think it would be acceptable in a reasonable debate about what a senator's duty is when he is voting and what constitutes a vote in this place. But let us look even further. The requirement also refers to a vote in the Committee of the Whole. I raise the question of a vote on omnibus Bills that we discuss here now and again. Such Bills make changes to many pieces of legislation. Senator Vigor might be able to tell me how many pieces of legislation were changed by the last Bill of miscellaneous amendments. Hundreds of items dealing with hundreds of pieces of legislation are dealt with in an omnibus Bill. They are little bits and pieces, but as I had a chance to say on the last such Bill that came through this place, some of them are not small; some of them are quite important changes of principle that have crept into such Bills. I have stated that the next time such a Bill is introduced we will not accept on face value that it is merely tidying up and we will seek a long, extensive debate in Committee, probably clause by clause, if that occurs again. The convention on such Bills was that they were tidying up Bills. We have fired that shot across the bows and we expect that it will be heeded. Such Bills which have been introduced up to date have dealt with hundreds of items. There is no way in the world when such a Bill is dealt with in the Committee of the Whole and there is a vote at the end that any honourable senator-I am not talking just about back benchers-could know the ramifications of all the changes. I do not know how other parties deal with the matter but the Democrats deal with those Bills by asking the people who have responsibility for various portfolio areas to look at the legislation which is under their charge and to bring to the party room any concerns that they have about those items. It is an awful lot of work both on our part and on the part of our staff to go through the Bills. Quite frankly, we would prefer not to have to do that but at least we do get a general overview of the Bill at our party meeting. I am not sure that that occurs in the other party meetings or Caucus meetings, given the larger numbers of senators who are inveigled in those meetings. I am not trying to score points off anybody. I am talking about the normal practical operation of this chamber and of the parties that meet in this chamber. That is what I thought we were about in this debate. If people think that I am scoring points, I am not trying to score any. I am just trying to say that that is the way we operate. Let us not put through a motion tonight which will not operate in a way that can be dealt with in a conscientious fashion by every honourable senator. I do not believe that motion No. 4 can be dealt with conscientiously by every honourable senator. Given the enormous amount of legislation with which we have to deal and all the other matters with which members have to deal, whether they are back bench members, shadow Cabinet Ministers or Cabinet Ministers, I do not believe that they can conscientiously support those ways of applying the principle. I again ask that we have some further thoughts on this matter. As I flagged at the beginning of my speech, I now seek leave to move a motion with regard to how we might consider this debate further. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —I move: That the Senate resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the motion 3. I believe that if the motion is carried we will have a better chance of dealing with the various items that are contained in these complex motions and ensuring that as we do so we are not passing any item that would be unable to be carried out by any honourable senator in a conscientious and reasonable manner. I am quite sure that Government and Opposition senators are seeking to ensure that any motion passed on these matters will be such as can be carried out by any honourable senator. If we do not go into the Committee of the Whole, I believe that we will have a great deal of difficulty making sure that each of the items is worked over thoroughly, conscientiously and effectively. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.23) —I am totally bemused by what the Australian Democrats are doing. We have before us an amendment to the Government's motion which seeks to remove most of the words relating to registrable interests and to substitute a-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! Senator, I do not think that the amendment has been moved yet. Senator DURACK —Perhaps when they move it they can explain what they are doing. How is it consistent with the motion that they have circulated? Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.25) —If nobody else wishes to contribute to the debate, I will respond briefly to Senator Durack's remarks. My motion is a procedural motion in terms of how we are dealing with the debate. It is not pertinent to the content of the debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is that the motion moved by Senator Macklin be agreed to. Senator Durack —Apparently he has not moved anything. Senator Macklin —Yes, I did. I sought leave; leave was granted, and I moved the motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Macklin, by leave, moved that the matter be considered in the Committee of the Whole. That is the motion before the Chair. Question resolved in the affirmative. In Committee The motion. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.26) —As the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) is not in the chamber, I ask the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), who is now handling the matter, a question about paragraph (1) (b) in respect of the registrable interests with regard to a senator's spouse. Why have de factos been excluded from that item? Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.26) —While the Minister is considering that issue, I would like to move a motion in the name of the Australian Democrats concerning the interests of honourable senators. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator, are you moving an amendment? Senator VIGOR —Yes, it is an amendment to motion No. 3 The CHAIRMAN —I should make it clear that the only motion that can be before the Chair at the moment is motion No. 3. Motions Nos 4 and 5 have not yet been dealt with. Senator VIGOR —It is an amendment to motion No. 3. I move: Motion No. 3, leave out all words after ``Parliament'' (first occurring), insert: ``(1) That a Senator, before speaking in any debate in the Senate or Committee of the Whole or participating in any proceedings of a committee appointed by the Senate or by both Houses of the Parliament, and before voting in any division in the Senate, Committee of the Whole or such a committee, declare any interest of the Senator, or of any person associated with the Senator, of which the Senator is aware, which may be relevant to that debate or division or those proceedings. (2) That a declaration under paragraph (1) be made orally to the Senate, Committee of the Whole or such committee, or by writing delivered to the Clerk of the Senate, where the declaration relates to the Senate or a Committee of the Whole, or to the secretary of the committee, where it relates to such a committee, and reported to the Senate, Committee of the Whole or committee. (3) That a declaration under paragraph (1) be recorded in the Journals of the Senate and Hansard where the declaration is made in the Senate or Committee of the Whole, and in minutes of proceedings where the declaration is made in a committee. (4) That, for the purposes of paragraph (1), an interest of a Senator shall be taken to be relevant to a debate or division or to proceedings if the interest is such that the interest may influence the conduct of the Senator in the debate, division or proceedings. (5) That, for the purposes of paragraph (1), a person shall be taken to be associated with a Senator if an association between the person and the Senator is such that the Senator may have regard to an interest of that person in determining the Senator's conduct as a Senator. (6) That the Senate will regard as guilty of a serious contempt any Senator who knowingly fails to comply with this resolution.'' As Senator Macklin has put forward, we find many problems with the provisions that have been proposed by the Government for declaration of interests. The matter needs to be simplified, at least in the initial stages, by making a real and meaningful declaration of interest rather than the type of empty declaration which is described within the set of motions that we are considering. The whole idea of the amendment is that we should leave out all words after `Parliament' and replace them with the words which we have circulated. The amendments basically say that senators shall have to declare their interests only if they are speaking in any debate and before voting in any division in the Senate. Most of the problems that Senator Macklin has put forward involved the very complex and quite unworkable definitions of `interest'. In this amendment we suggest that an interest which must be declared is such that the interest may influence the conduct of a senator in a debate, division or proceedings. This will make it pos- sible for ordinary back benchers to comply with the declaration. It will not place an onerous burden upon honourable senators of knowing exactly at every possible time what is happening in the Senate chamber. It is a workable solution and I commend it to the Senate. I am disappointed that the Government has put forward to us such gobbledegook as is included in motion No. 3. I believe that Senator Macklin has shown us, with the very few examples that he took, that the Government's definitions are completely unworkable. I commend to honourable senators that we support my amendment and that, later we support motion No. 4 so that this Senate can examine how a register can be set up. The Government's concept of a register does not work. If we have a register in advance, and if we have the requirements for declaration of interest in debates and during other proceedings as proposed by the Government, senators will have great difficulty satisfying declaration of interest requirements. I commend my amendment to honourable senators. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 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 —It being 10.30 p.m., I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1987- No. M31-Australia-Meat Accreditation Required for Slaughtering and Packaging of Meat for Export, dated 24 February 1987. No. MS11-Contract Requirements-Shipping of Meat to North America, dated 27 February 1987. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1987- No. 1-Prescribed Goods (General) as amended (Amendment). No. 2-Export Control (Fees) (Amendment). No. 3-Export Meat Orders as amended (Amendment). Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notices- No. 175-Prohibition on the taking of western rock lobster, dated 16 February 1987. No. 176-Revocation of Fisheries Notice No. 137-Prohibition on the taking of decapod crustaceans off North-Western Australia, dated 23 February 1987. Plan of Management No. 11-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (Amendment). Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) by the Minister, describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1987- No. 1-Meat Inspection (Fees) as amended (Amendment). Norfolk Island Act-Regulations 1987 No. 1-(Medical Practitioners Registration). Postal Services Act-By-laws 1987-Postal Staff Amendment No. 1. Public Service Act-Determinations 1987 Nos 4, 8. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determinations 1987- No. 1-Chief Executive Officer, Federal Airports Corporation, and others, dated 6 February 1987. No. 2-Human Rights Commissioner, and others, dated 6 February 1987. No. 3-President and Councillors appointed to the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, dated 6 February 1987. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the Subsidy Scheme in relation to the States and the Northern Territory, dated 23 February 1987 and 4 March 1987. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Direction-No. 18, dated 13 January 1987. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 75. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 46. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 899) Senator Zakharov asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: Can the Attorney-General provide information on what action has been taken in response to the recommendations of the Family Law Council Report 1985, specifically recommendations 1.D. Court Staff, numbers 12 to 17: ``(12) Despite recent increases there still remains serious inadequacies in the staffing of the Family Law Court, particularly in the areas of conciliation involving counsellors and registrars. This continues to result in unnecessary delays and increased expense. (13) There is also inadequate staff to provide information and assistance to the public. (14) A regular staff development and training program should be implemented by the Principal Registry on a national basis. (15) Such training should apply to all levels of staff, and should be on-going, and conducted in conjunction with improved staff development procedures and more effective liaison between staff at various levels of the Court. (16) Staff should be selected according to their ability to work in a particular role, rather than concentrating on moulding staff to fit particular positions. (17) The provision of crisis counselling at all times and the provision of a senior orderly/usher in the reception area of all registries to assist with information and advice particularly to litigants in person, are required.''. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Before providing answers to the specific questions asked, I make a general observation in relation to the work of the judges and the staff of the Family Court of Australia. The statistics contained in my Department's annual report for 1985/86 demonstrate that in relation to applications for dissolution of marriage the number of applications has decreased from a high of 39,026 in 1982 to 34,689 in 1985. However in 1986 this figure increased to 36,827. Each of these applications must be heard by a judge of the Family Court and require constant judicial and staff resources. Apart from dissolution applications, there are substantial numbers of ancillary orders sought from the Court each year. These include orders for access, custody, property settlement, maintenance arrangements and injunctions. These applications have risen in number from 29,737 in 1983 to 34,558 in 1986. Not all of the ancillary applications go before judges of the Court. Court statistics indicate that in the years 1983 to 1986 the overall settlement rate varied between 90% and 95%. The highest settlement rate is with injunction and maintenance applications where only about 5% of the cases are determined by judges. In custody, access and pro-perty applications, approximately 10% each year are determined by judges. Applications which are settled, still require the substantial use of Court resources. Most settlements are brought about as a result of Order 24 Conferences conducted by Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Counsellors of the Family Court. Recommendation 12 In mid 1985 basically uniform Case Management procedures (covering all aspects of cases) were introduced in all Registries to ensure that cases progress through the Court as expeditiously as possible and to provide ample opportunity for parties to reach agreement and settle. The full effect of those procedures is yet to be realised. In addition, the parties' costs should be mini-mised from the orderly progression of cases. The question of staffing levels is kept continually under review. Since the Report was made, the total staff of the court has been increased from 474 in 1984 to 520 in 1986. There has been a change in the structure of the Counselling Service, with the total number of counsellors being increased from 98 in 1984 to 104 in 1986. Likewise, with the introduction of Case Management and the section 37a powers of Registrars, the number of Registrars has increased from 33 in 1984 to 43 in 1986. The question of staffing cannot be separated from the question of efficiency and effectiveness of the total operation of the court. A Joint Task Force, established early in 1986 by the Attorney-General and the then Acting Chief Judge of the Court, has been examining the methods of dealing with cases which do not settle in the course of the Case Management procedures. In a number of registries, changes in these procedures are being implemented to expedite the disposal of cases by settlement or determination. While it is conceded that the court was quite inadequately staffed in 1983 when this Government came to office, the court cannot expect a continued increase in staff irrespective of workload and the total budgetary resources available to the Commonwealth. Recommendation 13 The Government accepts the importance of providing adequate information and assistance to the public. The Family Law Council report did not identify in what aspects it considered the information and assistance provided to the public to be inadequate. The staffing resources which can be provided to the Court are limited by the overall budgetary priorities of the Government, and the Court is responsible for the allocation of the staffing resources provided to it. Recommendations 14 and 15 The Principal Registry conducted professional conferences of Registrars and Directors of Court Counselling in February 1986, a conference for Deputy Registrars in March 1986 and a conference of Registrars, Counsellors and many of the Court Judges in June 1986. In November 1986 several Registrars attended a high level week long course on judicial administration conducted by the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration. Each of these conferences included professional development as a substantial component of the agenda. In addition to training organised on a nationwide basis, the Court conducts on-going in-house training for Registrars and staff at all levels. Such training is conducted in group or individual sessions as needs arise and resources permit. For example during 1986 all Registrars exercising jurisdiction under section 37a of the Family Law Act have undertaken courses in practical training organised by the Principal Registry. Also Counselling Sections within the various Registries have conducted group professional workshops and Registrars meet regularly for formal exchanges of professional information, experiences and ideas. The importance placed on specialist training by the Court is reflected in the recent establishment in the Principal Registry of positions for a Deputy Principal Registrar and a Senior Training Officer. These positions will have the responsibility, together with the Principal Registrar, of developing a comprehensive staff development and training program for Court personnel at all levels. Practical workshops for Registrars and Counsellors on a national and regional basis will be featured in this training program. Recommendation 16 There is some difficulty in understanding the nature of this recommendation. The selection process tries to ensure that persons selected for positions have the ability and capacity to undertake the particular functions that they are required to perform. Specifications drawn up for particular positions necessarily refer to those positions and not to the individual talents of persons applying for them. Recommendation 17 Counsellors are, and always have been, available to assist litigants in crisis situations in all of the larger Registries and in most of the regional Registries. Counter officers are always available to provide information and advice of a procedural nature to litigants and others. Registrars in the larger Registries and in a number of regional Registries are also available for this purpose. In some Registries, depending on the experience of the officer concerned, a number of Orderlies also provide advice and assistance of a general nature. However the allocation of a senior Orderly/Usher in each Registry, specifically to provide advice and information to litigants, would have substantial resource implications. In the smaller Registries the one person may perform a number of functions and in some small Registries there is not enough work to justify a full-time senior Orderly/Usher. (Question No. 968) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) What is the determined policy of the Attorney-General's Department in relation to de facto relationships. (2) How is the policy implemented in regard to rights under Commonwealth law. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Department's policy is determined by its responsibility for implementation of the Government's policy relating to discrimination on a number of grounds, including marital status. In furtherance of this policy, the Department has co-ordinated a review of all Commonwealth and Territory legislation to ensure consistency with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. That review led to the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Act 1986, which amended a number of Acts to remove discriminatory provisions. Removal of discrimination in superannuation legislation is currently being re-examined. (Question No. 1382) Senator Alston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 September 1986: (1) Does the Government support the 1980 Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front Referendum Proposal which is designed to secure a peaceful resolution of the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, now in its 25th year. (2) Is the Government prepared to take any diplomatic initiatives aimed at achieving a cessation of the military conflict and the establishment of a political structure acceptable to the Eritrean people and the Ethiopian Government; if so, what are they. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is aware of the seven-point referendum proposal put forward by `the Eritrean Peoples' Liberation Front in November 1980 for an internationally supervised referendum to bring about a peaceful solution to the civil war in the Eritrean region of Ethiopia. The Government is concerned by the human suffering caused by the continuing civil war, and will support any formula for a peaceful solution to the unrest acceptable to parties to the conflict. (2) The Government's major concern is to remain responsive to the humanitarian needs of all Ethiopians. In matters relating to possible political solutions to the civil war, we are influenced by the position and deliberations of the Organisations of African Unity and the United Nations. We will continue to monitor closely debate in these international bodies and will lend our support where appropriate to initiatives designed to bring peaceful resolution to the conflict. (Question No. 1526) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) How long has the process of food irradiation been used as a means of food preservation. (2) Are there any studies which have purported to have shown that eating food which has undergone the irradiation process has caused cancer in humans or animals; if so, have these studies been considered by various expert world bodies when setting out guidelines for the food irradiation process. (3) Does the food irradiation process cause radioactive substances to be left behind in the food. (4) Have aflatoxins been found in food which has undergone the irradiation process, but which has not been deliberately inoculated with aflatoxin-producing fungi. Senator Tate —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In 1921 a US Patent was granted on the use of X-rays to kill the parasite Trichinella spiralis in meat. This was followed in 1930 by a French Patent for the preservation of foods by irradiation. Commercial food irradiation was first approved in the USSR in 1958. The first Western nation to approve the process was Canada in 1960. The USA gave permission for the irradiation of certain foods in 1963. Presently irradiation of one or more food items for human consumption has been unconditionally cleared by Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, France, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, USSR, USA, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. (2) Yes. These studies have been considered by various world bodies, including the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)/Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)/World Health Organisation's (WHO) Joint Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food (JECFI), the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. The claims that irradiated food could cause cancer were examined and the experimental data on which they were purported to be based critically re-evaluated. These bodies concluded that no evidence was found to support claims that cancer would arise from the consumption of food irradiated within the levels proposed. (3) The production of radioactivity in irradiated food has been considered by the USA FDA and the UK Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. In 1984 the USA FDA reported: ``the accumulated evidence shows that the use of ionizing radiation of appropriate source energy levels does not induce any detectable radioactivity in foods . . .''. (Reference: Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 31, February 14, 1984 page 5716) Similarly the UK Advisory Committee has stated: ``We are satisfied that significant radioactivity cannot be induced in food irradiated within the limitations of dose and energy specified . . .''. (Reference: ``Report on the Safety and Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods'', Department of Health and Social Security, 1986, page 11) (4) My Department is not aware of any studies into aflatoxins in irradiated food which had not been deliberately inoculated with aflatoxin producing fungi. The FDA reported on this issue that: ``The agency [i.e. the FDA] has no evidence which would lead it to conclude that food irradiated and stored under normal handling practices would show increased aflatoxin production.'' (Reference: Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 75, April 18, 1986 page 13381). (Question No. 1556) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 December 1986: (1) Can the Minister for Health indicate where and when the installation of the 5 MRI machines, which he has said will be installed in each of 5 States in Australia, will take place. (2) (a) What is the purpose of the evaluation of the MRI program, which he has announced; (b) what evaluation protocols are being used; (c) who devised the protocols; (d) who is responsible for the evaluation; (e) what is the cost of the evaluation; and (f) when will each of the evaluations be completed. (3) Are any further machines to be installed in Australia under current Commonwealth/State arrangements in (a) 1986; (b) 1987; (c) 1988; or (d) prior to the completion of the time in which the first 5 machines will be evaluated. (4) If this is so in relation to Sydney, where will such a MRI facility be located. (5) If the answer to question (4) is ``yes'' in relation to the second installation, can the Minister say whether any further machines will be installed in NSW. (6) Will the Minister incorporate the experience of the privately funded MRI unit at 251-281 New South Head Road, Edgecliff, which has been contributing to the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists evaluation of costs and clinical efficacy, into the national evaluation program for MRI facilities. (7) Given that the current medical benefit for MRI is set at $235 and is limited to 5 facilities, would the Minister consider extending the benefit to other facilities which have come into operation in 1987 either (a) before; or (b) after the completion of the period of evaluation for the units attracting benefits. (8) Is the Minister satisfied that the current benefit covers the professional component and maintenance costs within the technical component of the fee charged; if he is not, what proportion is not being covered. Senator Tate —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The responsibility for carrying out the installation of the five MRI machines lies with the respective State governments. I am advised that the actual or anticipated dates of installation are as follows: New South Wales-Royal North Shore Hospital-August 1986 Victoria-Royal Melbourne Hospital-August 1986 South Australia-Royal Adelaide Hospital-February 1987 Queensland-Princess Alexandra Hospital-Third Quarter 1987 Western Australia-Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital-Third Quarter 1987. (2) (a) The purpose of the MRI evaluation is to define the appropriate uses and the costs of this expensive technology. (b) A ``minimum data set'' protocol for the collection of data for each patient examined at the five MRI units has been developed. Data collection according to this protocol is under way in Sydney and Melbourne. Additional protocols are expected to be developed for data collection on specific patients. A cost data collection protocol has also been developed. (c) The minimum data set has been devised by the MRI Technical Committee of the National Health Technology Advisory Panel (NHTAP). The Committee comprises representatives of the NHTAP, the hospitals participating in the evaluation and the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists (RACR). The cost collection protocol was developed by Coopers Lybrand in consultation with the MRI Technical Committee and the hospitals concerned. (d) The NHTAP has overall responsibility for the evaluation. (e) The evaluation is being supported by the Commonwealth through a Health Program Grant to each participating hospital of $200 000. The grants will total $1m over the life of the Program. In addition, administrative support services are being provided by the Department of Health. The States are also making some contribution through the provision of facilities at hospitals. (f) Data collection will proceed for two years at each hospital. The full evaluation will not be completed until the third quarter of 1989, two years after installation of the fifth unit, but the NHTAP expects to release interim reports before that time. (3) (a)-(d) While the possible need for additional machines has always been recognised, there are no firm plans for the installation of further machines under current Commonwealth/State financial arrangements. (4) The question of location of any health facilities in individual States is a matter for consideration by the relevant State government. (5) Not applicable. (6) Given the complex nature and timing of the MRI evaluation program it is not intended that data from the privately funded unit of Edgecliff, or other MRI units, should be incorporated with data from the MRI evaluation program. However, any data provided by the Edgecliff unit will be made available to the NHTAP and taken into account in the development of recommendations on the use of MRI in Australia. (7) (a) and (b) The Commonwealth will await the advice of the NHTAP Technical Committee before making any decisions on the possible extension of financing arrangements. (8) Yes. The Schedule fee was derived from figures for the professional and operating expenses, including maintenance, supplied by State health authorities. (Question No. 1557) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 December 1986: (1) Does the Attorney-General agree with the decision (F86/6583) of Mr L. G. Glare in which he refused Mr Hancock access to tape recordings of an AAT hearing in which he was involved. (2) Does this decision limit the rights of parties before the tribunal to test the accuracy of transcripts which may be in question. (3) Has the Attorney-General or his Department taken any action to change the arrangements which gave rise to the decision referred to in question (1). (4) Is the Attorney-General aware that Mr Brazil was excused from complying with a subpoena issued in a Freedom of Information action initiated by Mr Hancock. (5) How frequently does Mr Brazil seek to avoid giving evidence in such cases. (6) Why was he unwilling to give evidence. (7) Is the Attorney-General aware that in matter N85/515, a decision handed down on the morning of 2 June 1986 was read to Mr Hancock. (8) Is the Attorney-General aware that this version of the decision read over the telephone to Mr Hancock was found by Mr Hancock to be different to the written judgment received later by Mr Hancock. (9) Will the Attorney-General order a full investigation into this matter. (10) Do all these matters and those raised by me in Question on Notice No. 1444 cause the Attorney- General concern about the operation of the Commonwealth Recording Service. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Question 1 The review of a decision under section 54 of the Act is not a matter for consideration by the Attorney- General. The Secretary of the Department, as principal officer within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act, has authorised all Deputy Secretaries, under sub-section 54 (2) of the Act, to conduct reviews for the purpose of section 54 of the Act. Mr Glare, a Deputy Secretary of the Department, made his decision pursuant to that authority. An application for review of the decision by Mr Glare may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Question 2 No. In accordance with established policy, Commonwealth Reporting Service (CRS) provides an unedited verbatim transcript of proceedings which it will not delete from, add to, or alter. CRS will, however, correct transcription errors that are brought to its attention and subsequently notify all recipients of that transcript of any such corrections. Question 3 No. Questions 4, 5 and 6 The request by Mr Hancock for a subpoena to be issued by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) against Mr Brazil was refused by a Deputy President of the AAT on 16 June 1986. Question 7 Yes. A decision of the AAT in matter N85/515 was handed down on 2 June 1986. Mr Hancock did not attend the handing down of that decision, but I am advised that the terms of the decision were read to Mr Hancock over the telephone. Question 8 My advice is that the decision read over the telephone to Mr Hancock was in identical terms to the copy of the decision that was subsequently posted to Mr Hancock. Question 9 No. An investigation is not considered necessary. Question 10 No. (Question No. 1573) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 December 1986: (1) Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs' attention been drawn to a report in the London Sunday Telegraph on 23 November 1986 which reported that the Soviet Union supplied chemical warfare weapons to Syria via Libya. (2) Can the Minister confirm this report and repeated earlier reports which claimed Syria has acquired Binary Sarin Nerve Gas as warheads for their new long range SS21 missiles. (3) If the Minister can confirm the acquisition by Syria of such dangerous weapons of mass destruction, will Australia warn Syria, Libya and the Soviet Union against the use of such weapons. (4) What steps will the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament and other Australian representatives take at international forums to prevent the widening use of gas warfare in the Middle East. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I have been advised of such a report but I have not read it. (2) and (3) I am unable to confirm the London Sunday Telegraph report, nor reports that Syria has acquired Sarin nerve gas as warheads for their SS21 missiles. It is possible, however, that Syria has imported that precursor ingredients for the manufacture of chemical warfare agents (including perhaps Sarin). I am advised that the technology for placing chemical warheads on missiles such as the SS21 is complex and I do not know whether Syria could do this effectively or whether Libya would be in a position to supply them. Australia has spoken out strongly against the use of chemical weapons by any country and will continue to do so. On 16 March 1986 in condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War, I made clear that the Australian Government did not consider the use of chemical weapons justified under any circumstances. Australia has long urged that the current negotiations for a convention to eliminate chemical weapons should include, as one of its objectives, a ban on the use of such weapons. At the recently concluded UN General Assembly, Australia cosponsored two resolutions on chemical weapons both of which for the first time endorsed this Australian position. (4) A comprehensive international convention banning chemical weapons has long been a high priority for Australian disarmament policy. Iraq's confirmed use of chemical weapons in the Gulf war and disturbing indications over the past few years of a slow growth in the number of states either possessing or interested in acquiring an offensive chemical warfare capability have lent a special urgency to this task. Accordingly, Australia's work on this subject has picked up momentum in the past two years to the point where foreign commentators, notably in the United States, have spoken of ``Australia's leadership role'' on this subject. Work is proceeding on three fronts. First, Australia has been prominent at both the diplomatic and technical level in the negotiations at the 40-nation Conference on Disarmament for a new Comprehensive Chemical Weapons Convention. It is intended that this Convention will not only halt the use of chemical weapons but also their possession and manufacture, and that it will require the destruction of existing stocks and their means of production under effective international supervision and the monitoring of civilian chemical industries to guard against the hidden production of weapons. In 1986 Australia chaired one of the Conference on Disarmament's three Working Groups on this topic which made considerable progress. In May 1986 the Australian delegation to the Conference on Disarmament tabled a paper outlining the results of a trial run of inspection procedures of a civilian chemical plant carried out in Australia by Government officials with the willing cooperation of the Australian company which owns the factory. Second, Australia has been active against chemical weapons in the United Nations, and has supported an initiative to authorise the United Nations Secretary-General to undertake investigations of reports of the use of chemical weapons. This led the Secretary-General to compile a list of laboratories and experts to assist him in the investigation of reports of use of chemical weapons e.g. through the analysis of samples gathered in the course of such investigations. Australia nominated the Defence Department's Material Research Laboratories (MRL) in Melbourne for inclusion on the Secretary General's list and has spent nearly $400,000 on providing MRL with additional manpower and equipment. Dr Peter Dunn of MRL participated in the 1984 and 1986 United Nations Secretary-General's on-site investigations in Iran, which confirmed Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War. Iraq's use has been condemned by the Security Council also with Australia's participation. Finally, the Government has taken steps to ensure that Australia does not inadvertently contribute to the problem of chemical weapons use through chemicals which are exported from Australia being secretly diverted to the manufacture of chemical weapons. The Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations have been amended to control the export from Australia of eight chemicals that could be misused in this way and the Government has recently decided to apply export controls to an additional 22 such chemicals. Australia has convened consultations with eighteen industrial countries which have adopted similar measures (known as the `Australian Group') with a view to harmonising and cooperating in such measures internationally, as well as exchanging information and warning domestic chemical industries against the dangers involved. (Question No. 1611) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) If Watson High School is to become a boarding school, who will be eligible to attend from (a) the Australian Capital Territory (ACT); and (b) New South Wales. (2) In the case of ACT students (a) what criteria will apply for selection of students; (b) will the school take the form of a refuge; (c) will there be a fee; if so, how much; (d) will there be some day students only; if so, from what catchment area will they be drawn. (3) What are the proposed (a) capital costs; (b) running costs of such a boarding school. (4) Will extra Government funds be required or will existing allocations to the ACT be used, thus reducing current funding. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(4) The Government is yet to decide what alternative use will be made of Watson High School. A number of uses are under consideration. (Question No. 90) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Is the Government giving consideration to the removal of the official interest rate ceiling on loans of less than $100,000. (2) Are small business lending and loans for occupied housing primarily affected by the official interest rate ceiling on loans of less than $100,000. (3) Has de-regulation of Australian financial markets created as improved operating market for banks. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) & (2) In a joint statement of 29 April 1985, the Treasurer and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce announced the removal of certain interest rate controls as they applied to small business and personal finance. Subsequently, in a joint statement of 2 April 1986, the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing and Construction announced the removal of the interest rate ceiling on new bank loans under $100,000 for owner-occupied housing. Therefore, interest-rate ceilings on bank loans under $100,000 for all purposes, other than for owner-occupied housing approved prior to 3 April 1986, have been removed. In removing the interest-rate ceiling which applied to loans to small businesses and to personal finance, the Government noted the claims by representatives of small business that the ceiling inhibited the flow of funds to their members. The removal of the ceiling should have contributed to remedying that situation, notwithstanding the fact that subsequent increases in interest rates will have affected the cost of borrowing. The Government is monitoring the flow of funds to small businesses. (3) Deregulation has provided increased opportunities for banks and encouraged them to be more innovative. It has also resulted in greater competition in financial services generally. The issue of additional banking authorities has further increased that competition. While the established banks have gained increased opportunities from deregulation, they are now also facing greater competition in financial markets. (Question No. 947) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: What measures does the Government propose to introduce to ensure that the establishment of productivity-based superannuation will not produce the following problems: (a) duplication of administration and rules controlling superannuation funds; (b) anomalies from the operation simultaneously of union-sponsored industry schemes, and existing employer schemes; and (c) an uneven benefit that Australians will receive from the 3 per cent schemes, particularly where they already have fully-vested superannuation. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) The Government believes that the superannuation measures it is pursuing will be cost effective and will not involve any duplication of the kind mentioned. (b) In its decision of 26 June 1986, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission stated that it would ratify agreements or make consent awards providing for improved superannuation arrangements only if the consent of employers is genuine. Negotiations on any improvements to be made would encompass the type of benefit to be provided and the scheme or schemes into which employer contributions on behalf of employees are to be made. A constructive approach to those negotiations should avoid the prospect of anomalies occurring. (c) The views of the relevant parties and the processes arising from the Commission's decision as noted above, together with any developments which may arise out of the current National Wage Case, will, of course, have an important bearing on changes in the nature and extent of superannuation coverage in the immediate period ahead. (Question No. 1118) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: When will the reply to my question, which first appeared on the Notice Paper of 12 February 1986, be forthcoming. Senator Walsh —The answer to Question No. 827 appeared in the Senate Hansard of 17 February 1987 on pages 2 and 3. (Question No. 1366) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: What are the reasons for your Department's failure to answer my Question on Notice number 827 dated 11 February 1986 and my supplementary Question on Notice number 1118 dated 29 May 1986. Senator Walsh —The answer to Question No. 827 (referred to in Question No. 1118) appeared in the Senate Hansard of 17 February 1987 on pages 2 and 3. (Question No. 1523) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 November 1986: (1) What restrictive work practices are in force at the Australian Shipping Commission and its subsidiaries, which, in the opinion of management, reduce productivity without any compensatory safety or industrial health benefits. (2) What restrictive work practices in force at the Australian Shipping Commission and its subsidiaries, while having some safety or industrial health benefits, are done in such a way that comparable benefits could be achieved with less loss of productivity. (3) What new restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have come into force in the last year. (4) What restrictive work practices, of the type noted above, have been eliminated in the past year and what have been the benefits to productivity in each case. (5) Has the management advised the Minister for Transport of the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices; if so, what is the total annual cost of these restrictive work practices. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(5) When this Government came to office, ANL was a run-down, loss making concern which was virtually bankrupt. This was the result of years of Government mismanagement and neglect. Huge losses had accumulated and inefficient work practices, sanctioned by long practice, were perpetuated. Recognising that this situation could not be reversed overnight, the Government implemented a range of corrective measures. It provided the Line with the capital base appropriate for an enterprise of its size and importance, restructured its top management and installed a new management team, and gave it a new legislative charter which allows it the flexibility to react to commercial pressures. Reinvigorated in this way, the Australian Shipping Commission had responded positively to its new commercial charter. Recognising that improved productivity was one of the most important factors in determining ANL's survival and future growth, it has moved towards a smaller, better trained work-force and introduced improved work practices into its ships, terminals and offices. It has reduced its total workforce by some 17% over the past three years, while turning around an operating loss of $18.8m to a profit of $38.2m. Significant improvements in shipboard work practices have been achieved. An average employment reduction of 2 berths per ship across the ANL fleet was implemented in 1983. As new ships are introduced, manning levels in line with the best Australian practice have been achieved. For example, the ``Australian Trader'' and the ``Australian Advance'' have crews of 25 and 27 respectively, a reduction of 19% and 15% respectively in the crew level of the ships they replaced. Similarly, ANL has been active in the identification and removal of restrictive work practices in its terminals. It has achieved a significant increase in workforce mobility through roster changes and changes to work practices implemented by terminal management at both its major terminals at Port Botany, Sydney and Webb Dock, Melbourne. Although the benefits of these initiatives have not been specifically quantified the new roster and work arrangements have resulted in substantial improvements in efficiency. It must also be recognised that there is a limit to what any single shipping operator can achieve in isolation. Most improvements in productivity and work practices can only be achieved in the context of industry-wide initiatives. To this end, I have promoted change in both the shipping and waterfront industries through the Maritime Industry Development Committee (MIDC) and the Government's waterfront strategy. Shipping incentives recently announced by the Government endorse recommendations of the MIDC's Report ``Moving Ahead'' which will lead to significant changes to seafarer training, shipboard organisation and work practices. The key element of this package is the introduction of multi-skilled ratings into the industry, which will break down job demarcation and significantly improve shipboard productivity. The immediate gain is a reduction in crews from 26 to 21 on new Australian bulk ships with further reductions possible once training systems are in place and a pool of multi-skilled ratings is developed. The Stevedoring Industry Review Committee (SIRC) is a major element of the Government's waterfront strategy, announced last December. The SIRC, set up following the final Report of the Shore Based Shipping Costs Task Force, and being chaired by Sir John Moore, will specifically address management and work practices impacting upon the performance of the stevedoring industry. ANL will be able to take advantage of both these industry initiatives. (Question No. 1545) Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Communications aware of the expense, inconvenience and loss of business now faced by users of OTC's Minerva Telex system who as a result of the Minerva-Telememo joint venture decision, must now have two different telex numbers for domestic and overseas callers, each on separate services and with different sending means, when many such users changed from Teledata to Minerva in order to avoid the complication of shared telex numbers. (2) Were Minerva users advised well in advance that their domestic telexes would have to be sent and received by Telememo, with vastly different operating procedures. (3) Was the argument used to support the joint-venture that there would be significant benefits for all users through the interworking of the 2 systems; if so, what have been the benefits which have so far flowed to Minerva users as a result of the decision. (4) Will the Minister take action to ensure that the services OTC agreed to provide to Minerva users will be restored; or if not, will he take action to ensure that the problem of different access arrangements for national and international telexes is overcome. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission: (1) I am aware that users of the OTC Minerva system now require two telex numbers, one registered with the OTC Minerva system for international telex and the other residing on the Telecom Telememo system for national telex. While there are some minor sending differences in the two systems these have been readily accommodated by Minerva users. This has been facilitated by an extensive training and educational program conducted by OTC and Telecom since April 1986. In addition, Telecom waived all Telememo-Telex registration charges for Minerva users to enable over 600 Minerva users to register with Telememo for national telex access at no additional cost. Tariffs to send international and national telex messages remained unchanged, under the revised arrangements. A joint venture has recently been established by Telecom and OTC to integrate their two existing electronic mail services and, later in 1987, the new joint service will provide access to the national and inter- national telex networks with a single address procedure for the sending and receiving of all telex messages for each individual user. Whilst some inconvenience has been experienced up to now by OTC Minerva customers, neither Telecom nor OTC is aware of any major expense incurred by those users and there is certainly no knowledge of loss of business. (2) All Minerva customers were advised two months before the change was made and they have since had almost nine months to adapt to the new procedures for sending telex messages to all destinations via the electronic mail systems. Training in the new procedures has been, and will continue to be, provided where requested. (3) and (4) Benefits will flow to all users following the launch of the new joint service in 1987 as the integrated service will allow existing telememo and Minerva users access to users on both systems and to correspondents on all the major public electronic mail and telex systems worldwide. Technical development is currently under way to implement these arrangements and I am confident that Australian users will see major improvements in services and facilities offered in 1987. (Question No. 1588) Senator Jessop asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: Can the Minister obtain from the Department or Statutory Authority concerned details of funds provided over the last 4 Budgets by way of grant, contract, recurrent funding, consultancy fees, property rental, or any other means, for a project or purpose involving any one of the following organisations: Australian Community Health Association, Australian Consumers' Association, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Council of Social Service, Victorian Council of Social Service, NSW Council of Social Service, ACT Council of Social Service, Queensland Council of Social Service, S.A. Council of Social Service, W.A. Council of Social Service, Tasmanian Council of Social Service, Australian Council of Rehabilitation of the Disabled, Australian Council on the Ageing, Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, Australian Pensioners' Federation, Combined Pensioners' Association of NSW, Combined Pensioners' Association of Victoria, Collective of Self Help Groups (Victoria), Disabled Persons International, Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, Health Issues Centre (Victoria), National Aboriginal and Islanders' Health Organisation, National Women's Health Association, Brisbane Women's Community Health Centre, Youth Affairs Council of Australia, Student Initiatives in Community Health, Australian National Association for Mental Health, Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council, Health Consumers' Forum, Rupert Public Interest Movement, Doctors' Reform Society, National Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Support Services, Women Against Poverty and Isolation, Medical Consumers' Association; if so, could details be given of: the amount of money involved, the purpose of the funds, the name and address of the sponsor and/or administrator of the funds, the name and address of other organisations involved in the use of the funds and the program or section of the Budget from which the funds were allocated. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Department of Finance does not require, in its dealings with departments and statutory authorities, the provision of the detailed information sought on the financial transactions identified in the question. It would be a costly and time-consuming task to gather such information. As has been the practice of previous Governments, the Government is not prepared to authorise the use of considerable resources of time and money that would be involved in assembling the information requested. (Question No. 1589) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: Table 18 in the Annual Report of the Commissioner for Superannuation covering the year ended 30 June 1985 shows that retired Commonwealth employees receive superannuation pensions ranging from less than $1,000 a year and that a very large proportion of superannuitants are eligible for supplementary social security age pensions. In that context, to avoid disadvantage to those former Commonwealth employees from the recent reduction of 2 per cent in the annual superannuation adjustment as from 23 October 1986, will the Minister confirm that: (a) there will be an immediate adjustment of the social security age pension supplement to offset the 2 per cent loss; and (b) those superannuitants will also be entitled to the next half-yearly social security increases available to other age pensioners. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) Any adjustment to the age pension due to a variation in the amount of superannuation received is made automatically in the majority of cases. There are approximately 750 cases in the ACT where the age pension is adjusted manually on advice from the pensioner. (b) The part age pension received by persons also in receipt of Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme pension will continue to be indexed on a twice-yearly basis. (Question No. 1590) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: (1) Was an expected savings in outlays of $12.6m for 1986-87 predicted during the Second Reading speech for the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. (2) As the relevant Act became effective from 10 October 1986, will the Minister for Finance advise- (a) the offsetting costs due to: (i) the loss of income tax and Medicare levy which would have otherwise applied to the income lost from 10 October 1986 to 30 June 1987 for some 106 000 payees; (ii) consequential increases in Social Security pensions and supplements; and (iii) extra work loads to meet the target date for changeover in the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office, the Department of Social Security and other paying agencies; and (b) the net result of these adjustments. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes (2) (a) (i) Loss of income tax and Medicare levy are estimated to be $2.8 million in the last 1986-87 financial year. (ii) It is estimated that total Social Security pension outlays will increase by about $1 million in 1986-87. The effect on unemployment, sickness and special benefit outlays will be negligible. (iii) The Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office estimates that the cost of overtime to meet the implementation of the 2% discounting was about $12,000. The impact on the Department of Social Security was not significant enough to warrant a demand for additional resources. (b) The net saving during 1986-87 is expected to be about $8.8 million. (Question No. 1626) Senator Walters asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) Are war widows now required to notify the Veterans' Affairs Department every quarter regarding reimbursement of travel costs incurred when visiting their doctor. (2) Are war widows now applying annually told that they will receive only the last quarter's expenses thus losing three quarters of their entitlement. (3) Why did the Department of Veterans' Affairs fail to notify war widows of entitlement for reimbursement of travel expenses. (4) What are the additional costs incurred by the Department of Veterans' Affairs as a result of processing these travel entitlements quarterly rather then annually. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. With the introduction of the Veterans' Entitlements Act on 22 May 1986 all Repatriation beneficiaries have been required to lodge claims for reimbursement of travel expenses within 3 months of the completion of that travel. (2) The application of this limitation would hinge entirely on the circumstances of each individual case and acceptance of the claim may vary depending on whether or not there exists an ongoing need for specific treatment involving travel. (3) This policy will be administered sympathetically and compassionately taking into account the general thrust of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. (4) On 9 February 1983, I announced the formation of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review to present the views of Veterans and their dependants. The Committee included representatives of the major ex-service organisations including the War Widows Guild of Australia. It was the recommendation of this Committee that travel expenses be accepted only if claims were lodged within 3 months of the expense being incurred. Prior to the introduction of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Department of Veterans' Affairs undertook an extensive publicity campaign to enable the ex-service community to be aware of the provisions of the Bill and to give them an opportunity to comment. (5) There are some minimal direct costs involved in administering the 3 months' time limitations but these are off-set by the savings in the extensive administrative effort involved in verifying claims submitted for travel undertaken many months, and sometimes years, earlier. (Question No. 1631) Senator Mason asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) Did the Department of Veterans' Affairs write to a number of country private hospitals on 27 November 1986 advising them that in future veterans would have to obtain prior permission from the Department before they were eligible for free elective surgery from these same hospitals; if so, what were the names of the country private hospitals so advised in each State or Territory. (2) What was the estimated cost saving to the Government of these new measures. (3) When were all veterans advised of this change in arrangements; if they were not so advised, why did the Department deem it not necessary to notify the Veterans of these changes. (4) Is it a fact that as a result of these new measures, some veterans will have to join private health funds-with the resultant one year delay before they are eligible for health care benefits-thereby adding to the queues of the people who need elective surgery. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) No. Surgical admissions to private hospitals have always required prior approval. However, on 27 November 1986 my Department did write to a number of country private hospitals advising that, in future, prior approval must be obtained for all admissions of entitled beneficiaries. Previously, my Department had agreements with these particular private hospitals which permitted short-term medical admissions without prior reference to my Department. (2) Admissions to private hospitals will continue to be approved where early treatment is indicated and cannot be provided through the Repatriation or public hospital system. Each case is determined on its merits. Although private hospitals will continue to be used where the urgency of the medical condition warrants this, the termination of agreements applying to medical admissions offers some potential for savings by removing the opportunity for private hospitals being used in circumstances where the higher cost could not be medically justified. The extent of these potential savings has not been estimated. (3) It was not necessary to advise individual Veterans of the change in administrative procedures since no action on their part was required. Local Medical Officers and specialists have the responsibility for arranging hospital admissions. All were advised of the revised procedures which had been introduced to ensure that they arranged necessary medical admissions in a cost-effective manner. (4) No. These revised arrangements do not affect procedures for admissions for elective surgery. Urgent admissions to country private hospitals, at departmental expense, will continue to be arranged when clinically necessary. Senator Walsh —On 24 September 1986 (Hansard, page 761) Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister for Finance. Her question concerned the estimated $6m shortfall in Queensland's compensation for 1986-87 under the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, due to a predicted doubling of the number of cattle to be destocked from 60,000 to 120,000. She requested that I support half the destocked cattle being placed in feed lots so that they can be fattened and sold for slaughter, thereby recouping some $3m which could contribute to other aspects of the BTEC program. At the time, I answered the first part of the question regarding the estimated $6m shortfall. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: In November 1985 Queensland made a submission to the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign (BTEC) Committee requesting $7.7 million in compensation expenditure for 60,445 cattle in 1986/87. This submission was endorsed by the Australian Agricultural Council and the Commonwealth budgeted for its 75 per cent contribution. In October 1986 Queensland submitted revised 1986/87 estimates of $16.3 million for compensation for 134,092 cattle, an increase of $8.6 million. The BTEC Committee Meeting of October 1986 did not endorse the revised Queensland estimate but asked Queensland to re-examine its estimates and to look at options that might extend its compensation funds. The Commonwealth has managed to arrange some additional compensation funding for Queensland which has been derived from saving in other States. Queensland has a program for lot feeding a number of cattle destocked under the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. The Commonwealth is not participating in the feed lotting scheme. However I support the proposal that the Queensland Government direct any savings back into the eradication campaign. (Question No. 1100) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) How many inspectors have been appointed under section 21 of the Whale Protection Act. (2) How many of these inspectors carry identity cards or proof of enforcement powers. (3) What training, if any, is provided by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service with particular reference to cetaceans. (4) Which ports are manned, on what basis, so that the Act may be enforced. (5) How many, if any, permits have been issued by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, with respect to section 11 (1) (b) of that Act. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No persons have been appointed as inspectors under section 21 of the Whale Protection Act 1980. The Commonwealth has proposed that State and Northern Territory officers who are authorised to perform duties under the Commonwealth's Fisheries Act 1952 and Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 (the administrative and enforcement costs of which function are reimbursed by the Commonwealth) be also appointed to enforce the provisions of the Whale Protection Act. To date, however, the level of additional reimbursement sought for this function is not considered appropriate in relation to the degree of threat to cetaceans in Australian waters. The Commonwealth is continuing to seek a satisfactory agreement to ensure that enforcement arrangements consistent with the protection requirements of cetaceans are implemented. (2) Identity cards have been printed and the intention is that each inspector appointed under section 21 of the Act would carry one of these cards. (3) Australian Government policy on the protection of cetaceans and detailed explanations of the provisions of the Whale Protection Act feature prominently in the contributions made by Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) officers to the regular training seminars conducted by the Royal Australian Navy for Executive Officers and Commanding Officers of patrol boats stationed in Australian waters. Participation of ANPWS officers in these seminars will continue and, following the appointment of inspectors, appropriate training schemes will be established. Meanwhile, draft guidelines for inspectors are being developed in liaison with the Australian Federal and Northern Territory Police Forces (whose officers are ex-officio inspectors) and with relevant Commonwealth and State Departments. (4) Enforcement of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, under which the importation and exportation of cetaceans, or the products thereof, is controlled, is undertaken by Customs Officers at all major ports in Australia. (5) No permits have been issued under section 11 (1) (b) of the Whales Protection Act. (Question No. 1473) Senator Newman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: Is a Forests Leaflet on wood chipping to be produced by the Australian Heritage Commission in December 1986 under its Information/Education Program 1986-87; if so, could the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment advise- (a) the purpose of the leaflet; (b) what will be the contents of the leaflet; and (c) is there any significance in the timing of the release of the leaflet which coincides with the forests campaign already announced by the conservationists for summer 1986-87. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No leaflet on woodchipping has yet been produced by the Australian Heritage Commission. However the Commission intends to produce such a leaflet in the future as part of its Information/Education Program. (a) The Australian Heritage Commission has a statutory obligation to heighten public awareness of the issues affecting the national estate, and part of our forests form a major component of Australia's national estate. At its meeting in July 1986, the Commission recognised that forestry harvesting and woodchipping was likely to be a national estate issue for a number of years. As a consequence, the Commission saw the need to produce information material which would describe the national estate issues affected by forestry harvesting and woodchipping so that a more informed level of public debate could be promoted. It was agreed that as part of this process a leaflet should be produced. (b) The contents of the leaflet have not yet been drafted in detail. I am advised however that it is proposed that it describe the national estate values of places in the Register of the National Estate which are either being, or are likely to be affected by forestry harvesting and woodchipping practices. (b) The Commission cannot estimate the date when the leaflet will be released. There is therefore no coincidence between the release of leaflet and any summer campaign by conservationists. (Question No. 1586) Senator Vigor asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 9 December 1986: (1) How many postage imprint vending machines had been installed by the end of the 1985-86 financial year. (2) How many more are expected to be operating in the 1986-87 financial year. (3) What procedures does Australia Post have for the destruction of imprints which are irregular. (4) Is Australia Post aware of sales by philatelic dealers of imprints on plain stock, on the back of regular stock, upside down on the front of regular stock, or with a zero price reading. (5) What steps are being taken to lessen the number of such irregular imprints. (6) In what circumstances will the machines print 00.00. (7) Are any additional efforts being made to prevent the abuse of such mishaps. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) 94. (2) 56. (3) Prescribed procedures require that all `no value' or test labels are to be destroyed in the presence of the postmaster. Generally, Australia Post does not have access to imprints which are irregular as they are retained by the customer. However, in circumstances where irregular imprints are presented to Australia Post by customers for repurchase or exchange, the irregular imprints are sent for destruction. The response to the Honourable Senator's question upon notice number 1584 sets out the prescribed destruction procedures. (4) Yes. (5) Australia Post has commenced an internal investigation to determine the possible source or sources of the irregular imprints and to establish revised procedures that will reduce or eliminate such imprints. (6) The machines will print a 00.00 label as part of the normal daily tests made to ensure that the printers and the control electronics are working satisfactorily. A malfunction may also produce that result. (7) See (5) above. (Question No. 1619) Senator Short asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware if any Australians attended the World Peace Council's (WPC) 14th Major Peace Congress in Copenhagen, October 15-19 in 1986. (2) If Australians were present at the Conference, who were they and which organisations did they represent. (3) Did the Australian Government sponsor any Australians to attend the Congress; if so, what are the names of the attendees and the organisations they represented. (4) What are the costs incurred for each attendee by the Australian Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) I am not aware of any Australian attendance at this meeting. (3) No. (4) Nil (not applicable).