Friday, 3 April 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the decision to curtail the landsca-ping at the New Parliament House is a false economy. The landscaping is an integral part of the building and environs which together will be one of the world's most exciting examples of architectural design this century. Incomplete it will be a monument to our lack of resolve as a nation. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: (a) Reconsider the reinstatement of the landscaping according to the present plans, (b) Consider savings which may be made in other areas to ensure this may be achieved. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Reid (from 38 citizens) and Ryan (from 129 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos into the A.C.T. or to their sale in the A.C.T. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 20 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 combatting 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 Reid (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. (2) The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senator West (from 357 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Duffy and surrounding suburbs respectfully showeth: that they are opposed to the closure of the Duffy Post Office as proposed by Australia Post. Your petitioners therefore pray that urgent consideration be given to preventing the closure of Duffy Post Office together with all its existing facilities. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 247 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to standing order 109a, I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 3 standing in my name for two sitting days hence for disallowance of the Student Assistance Regulations (Amendment) and the Fisheries Levy (Northern Prawn Fishery) Regulations (Amendment). I seek leave to a make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was concerned about the effects of retrospectivity in the Student Regulations and the implications for students' rights to assistance of certain references to the Higher School Certificate course. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has assured the Committee that the retrospectivity will cause no prejudice. She has also explained the reference to HSC courses and satisfied the Committee that certain students' rights to assistance are provided for in the Regulations. We thank the Minister for her graciousness. In the Fisheries Levy Regulations, the Committee noted that previous regulations imposing a $10 levy were being retrospectively corrected to reduce the levy to $5. The Regulations amounted to validation of a prima-facie unlawful collection of a lesser amount of fishing levy than the Regulations had provided for. That lesser amount, however, was consistent with the policy of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) which had not been properly reflected in the Regulations; hence the need to correct them. The Minister assured the Committee that no levy other than the lesser amount had been collected and that no individual had been prejudiced by the retrospectivity. Consistent with the Committee's usual practice of keeping the Senate informed of its scrutiny activity, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Committee's brief exchange of correspondence with the Ministers. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan Minister for Education Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 19 February 1987 the Committee considered the Student Assistance Regulations (Amendment) (being Statutory Rules 1986 No. 381) which amend the Principal Regulations to implement the provisions of ``Austudy''. The Committee would be grateful if you could clarify two matters. Firstly, parts of the Regulations are made retrospective and it appears that no one other than the Commonwealth is prejudiced by this. Could you, however, confirm that the Geelong Business Academy, which is retrospectively deleted by regulation 42 from the Schedule 3 list of technical and further education institutions for student assistance purposes, in fact ceased to exist prior to 30 April 1986? Secondly, new paragraph 29 (4e) (b) inserted by regulation 7 (on page 8), provides for the interpretation of an expression which has not previously been adequately defined, namely ``the normal full-time amount of work of the course for a year''. In relation to the work of an approved secondary course in paragraph 29 (4e) (b) ``the normal full-time amount of work'' is defined as 10 annual units where the course is designed to prepare students for the HSC in the ACT or NSW. The Committee would appreciate your clarification of this reference to the HSC in the ACT, where, as the Committee understands it, that course is not extensively pursued in deference to the ACT Year 12 Certificate. The latter does not appear to be referred to in the Regulations. As you appreciate, the Regulations are extremely intricate and complex. Thus, the Committee seeks your expert advice on the implications of this new paragraph and the comparative status of ACT Year 12 Certificate students and ACT HSC students. Your sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman Dear Barney, Thank you for your letter of 24 February 1987 requesting clarification of two aspects of Statutory Rules 1986 No. 381. Geelong Business Academy ceased to operate on 29 April 1986 owing to the ill health of the Principal. The second aspect concerns secondary studies in the ACT. Students undertaking matriculation studies at TAFE colleges in the ACT attempt the NSW Higher School Certificate examination. The ACT Year 12 Certificate applies to secondary schools only. The workload situation of secondary students at secondary schools is covered by regulation 44g. Such students are either full-time or not full-time. On the other hand students undertaking courses at tertiary education institutions may receive living allowance if they are undertaking three-quarters or more of the normal full-time workload. Paragraph 29 (4e) (b) provides a workload reference point for students undertaking matriculation studies at TAFE colleges in the ACT and NSW. Yours sincerely SUSAN RYAN Senator Barney Cooney Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 The Hon. John Kerin, M.P. Minister for Primary Industry Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 19 February 1987 the Committee considered the Fisheries Levy (Northern Prawn Fishery) Regulations (Amendment), being Statutory Rules 1986 No. 397, which prescribed units of fishing capacity and amounts of levy. The Committee seeks your comments on the effects of the retrospectivity in the Regulations. Regulation 3 amends regulation 6 and provides that the amount of levy imposed by certain paragraphs of the Fisheries Levy Act 1984 on the allocation or renewal of certain prescribed units of fishing capacity is $5 or $10 depending on the number of Class A units of fishing capacity determined under the plan of management in relation to a boat. The accompanying Explanatory Statement explains that although the intention behind the original regulation 6 was to impose levy at the rate of $5 for each Class A unit of a boat with no more than 375 Class A units, the levy in fact provided by the regulations for pre-existing licence holders was $10 for each Class A unit. It appears that in practice relevant levy was collected at the rate of $5 per unit. Thus, as the Explanatory Statement notes, the regulations were contrary to the intention of the levy policy and the levy collection practice was contrary to the terms of the regulations. The retrospectivity in the new regulations is, of course, designed to validate the previous collection of the lower levy in breach of the requirements of the regulations as they then stood. The Committee notes the comment in the Explanatory Statement that ``the retrospective operation of the amendment does not impose any additional liability upon persons who paid a lower rate of levy in 1986 than was prescribed at the time''. In this connection, the Committee seeks your advice on whether any relevant person in fact paid levy at a rate higher than $5. Also, perhaps you could let the Committee know if your legal advisers have considered the question whether the $5 levy collected prior to the coming into force of the latest amendment was in law collected illegally so that the regulations are in fact a retrospective validation of those illegal collections. If this were the case then the retrospectivity could be viewed as prejudicial to certain individuals. The committee would appreciate your comments and advice on these matters. Yours sincerely, BARNEY COONEY Chairman Senator B. Cooney Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Cooney, I refer to your letter of 24 February 1987, seeking my advice about matters raised by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances in relation to the Fisheries Levy (Northern Prawn Fishery) Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Rules 1986 No. 397). You ask whether any person whom the levy policy would have required to pay the concessional rate of levy of $5.00 per Class A unit in relation to the licensing year beginning on 1 March 1986 did in fact pay the full rate of levy, ie, $10.00 per Class A unit. No person paid other than the concessional rate on the allocation of Class A units that were simultaneously assigned to a boat for which the appropriate number of such units was fewer than 375. This was in accordance with the levy policy. You also ask whether the collection of levy at the concessional rate prior to commencement of the above amendments was illegal and whether the amendment is ``a retrospective validation of those illegal collections''. My view is that no levy was collected illegally, that is, no levy was collected contrary to the existing policy and authority for collection. However, it may reasonably be said that levy representing the difference between the concessional rate and the full rate was not collected in a number of cases. If there was any ``illegal'' action, it was the assigning of the relevant Class A units to boats before the full amount of levy, as the regulations then prescribed, was paid on the allocation of those Class A units to the holders. It is correct to say that the end purpose of the amendment of regulation 6 is to validate those assignments retrospectively. Your Committee has already noted the reasons for this, as set out in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Regulations. I fail to see, however, in what way the retrospectivity might have been prejudicial to any individual. No unit holder paid more levy than the levy policy intended. No unit holder will be required to pay additional levy as the result of retrospective application of the regulations for bringing the rate of levy, imposed on the allocation of Class A units that were simultaneously assigned to boats of fewer than 375 Class A units, into conformity with the levy policy in relation to those units and with the collections of levy that actually took place. I trust that the above comments will allay the Committee's concerns. Yours fraternally JOHN KERIN Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Alston for the period from 28 April 1987 to 7 May 1987 inclusive, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that on 2 April 1987 I received a letter from Senator Grimes resigning his place as a senator for the State of Tasmania. In accordance with section 21 of the Constitution, I notified the Governor of the State of Tasmania of a vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, requesting a change in the membership of Estimates Committee E. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Hill be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committee E and that Senator Lewis, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36ab, be appointed a member of the Committee. Consideration resumed from 2 April. Clause 8 (Functions). The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering clause 8 of the Bill. The question is that clause 8 stand as printed. When we finished last night there was an outstanding question. Does the Minister wish to answer it at this point? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.06) —Yes, Mr Chairman. Because there was some concern about the initial answer I gave regarding the Government's expectations for compensation, I took the unusual step of explaining and clarifying that answer during the adjournment debate. At that time I pointed to the compensation provisions in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 and the guarantee in the second reading speech of compensation where damage, direct or indirect, can be established. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.07) —I require further information about the costing. Where in the appropriations or in the Estimates have provisions been made for the financing of the Commission of Inquiry and for compensation? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.07) —As is normal practice, no appropriation is sought at this stage for expenses arising out of this legislation because it is not normal practice to seek appropriations before legislation is enacted. Once the legislation is enacted, appropriations will be sought in the normal budgetary processes. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.08) —The Minister referred to normal budgetary processes. Does the Government intend to use the Advance to the Minister for Finance? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.08) —I will confirm the advice I was given last night: Expenses arising from the establishment of the inquiry would be sought from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.08) —What about the people who believe they have had some indirect loss from this legislation? Senator Sanders —On a point of order: I call your attention, Mr Chairman, to the fact that we are discussing clause 8, which is about functions. Clause 19 covers compensation. Properly, under clause 8 we should be discussing the types of things listed under the clause heading. The CHAIRMAN —Clause 8 deals with functions. I have let the debate go so far. It seems to me to be relevant, but I will watch that point. Senator TOWNLEY —Who will determine whether a person is able to get some compensation, particularly when that person is slightly removed and has not obviously had some loss? The indirect situations will be very difficult for the determining people to work out. Who will be the determining people, and will they err on the side that helps people in the need they will obviously have? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.10) —In relation to those who claim direct loss from the processes of the inquiry, compensation will be determined by the Federal Court of Australia. This is set out in the provision in the Bill relating to compensation. In relation to those claiming and establishing indirect losses, it would be for the Government to determine as a matter of policy and make an ex gratia payment. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Before I call the next speaker, let me say that I think Senator Sanders was correct in his view. Clause 19 more accurately covers the subject of recent debate. Senators should confine their questions to matters that refer to the functions of the Commission of Inquiry, not to compensation, which will be dealt with later in the debate. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.12) —I wish to refer back to the matter relating to costings. I believe that this is an inappropriate use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. I remind the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) that the Advance to the Minister for Finance is a provision authorised by the annual Appropriation Act and made available to the Minister. I also remind the Minister that as a general principle the only amounts which would remain as a charge to the appropriations for the Advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are those that are urgent and unforeseen. I believe that the Minister cannot claim that the setting up of a commission has been unforeseen. One could hardly say that it was urgent. It might be urgent in the Minister's mind, but this program has been around for quite some time. There are other items in the annual appropriations that were examined the other night that made provisions for future commissions and for future consultants to be appointed. I refer to the Constitutional Reform Commission, for which an amount of $200,000 was set aside to cover such a contingency for advertising. I remind the Minister that funding under the Advance to the Minister for Finance should be for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. These expenditures, I submit, are foreseen. One cannot say that they are unforeseen because the legislation deliberately sets up a commission of three persons which will operate for up to 12 months. Therefore, the Government should have been able to put some sort of cost figures on the matter. The Minister will be aware that annual circulars are issued to departments which outline the procedures and emphasise the requirements for departments to ensure that their applications in relation to the Advance to the Minister for Finance contain, or are appropriately supported by, sufficient detail to demonstrate that the requests comply with the urgent and unforeseen criterion. I submit that such requests under these circumstances could not meet the criterion which is set out each year in annual circulars issued by the Department of Finance. The Government is trying to use a backdoor method of financing this Commission rather than using the normal appropriations which can be foreseen and estimated with a reasonable degree of accuracy. If it can be done in other areas, I submit that it should have been done in these circumstances. Departments are required to submit adequately supported applications for funds to the Department of Finance. So I would have hoped that this documentation could be properly supported. I believe that the Minister is inappropriately using this mechanism of the Advance to the Minister for Finance rather than the normal appropriations, which should have been before this Parliament in the form of the estimates in recent days. I would like the Minister's response. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.14) —At this stage I have nothing to add to the advice already given to the Committee, which is that it is not practice to seek appropriations for matters arising out of legislation which has not yet been enacted. The officers are investigating the matter further, and if there is any further information that can be obtained for the assistance of Senator Watson, I will provide it during the Committee stage. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(9.15) —I would like to deal with Senator Watson's point. The Opposition is suggesting that the Government should have put appropriations for this Commission in Appropriation Bills Nos 3 and 4. Can senators imagine the fuss that the Opposition would have raised if the Government had presumed the decision of the Parliament on this legislation? Senator Walters —Oh! Senator COATES —Senator Walters can say `oh' as much as she likes, but the Opposition would have created a huge fuss if the Government had presumed before the Parliament had passed this legislation that it was going to be passed. The examples Senator Watson used of matters that are put in for future expenditure that can be presumed were not matters that were subject to new legislation. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.16) —I would like to draw attention to the responsibility of the Commission of Inquiry under clause 8-the functions clause-and ask whether, in inquiring into and reporting on the matters as set out in that clause, the Commission will have access to the following documents: A cablegram to various departments from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation dated 25 June 1982; minutes of a meeting of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO of 17 September 1982; an undated draft letter to the Tasmanian Premier from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke); a letter to the Department of Foreign Affairs from the World Heritage Committee dated 1 September 1982? Will it sight the cablegram to various departments from UNESCO dated 22 June 1982? I also ask: Will it look at the minutes to the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service dated 12 December 1986? Will it also have access to advice prepared by the Attorney-General's Department for this Government? Will the documents that are in the Department of Primary Industry and in the Australian Heritage Commission be made available to this Commission of Inquiry? I have asked these questions for a very clear reason-that is, that they are all documents which are held by the three government bodies but which have been refused to me for very spurious reasons under the Freedom of Information Act. I would have thought that in a debate of such importance these documents would have been made available to a senator for Tasmania representing her constituents. Clearly, for quite unsatisfactory reasons-namely, the inability to get at the truth of the matter-they have been kept from me, at least until such time as this debate is over. They are the subject of application for an internal review which I have, at some cost to myself, now undertaken. But I ask: Will that information be available to the Commission of Inquiry when it was not available to a senator for Tasmania? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.17) —I am advised that the Commission will be enabled to call for documents that it may require. If it requires these documents it will be able to call for them and receive them. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.17) —Am I to understand from that that there is one rule for senators and another rule for commissions of inquiry when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —To be absolutely accurate, I think that is a question that is a little outside the purview of this Bill. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to take a moment or two to answer it. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.18) —I am advised that Senator Newman's question really goes to some other legal questions which I am not in a position to answer, but we can take that inquiry on notice. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.18) —There are two things arising from that. The first is: In relation to the Freedom of Information Act matter, I say to the Minister for Education that her answer breaks some very interesting new ground in this regard. As a person who was on the first Senate inquiry dealing with the Freedom of Information Act back in 1978 and as a person who has been sitting on the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which has been reviewing the operations of the Freedom of Information Act in the last three years, I say that if the Minister is attempting to say to this Parliament today that documents will be made available to a Government commission of inquiry which are not discoverable and which are specifically exempted in a freedom of information inquiry made by not only an honourable senator, but any citizen of Australia, the Minister is either giving this chamber some information which will come as a total bomb- shell or giving information that is a total contradiction of all the advice received by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. If that is correct, it will be a total perversion of the Freedom of Information Act. If the Minister's advice is that the Commission of Inquiry will have access to material already denied under a proper Freedom of Information Act request made by an honourable senator, then I certainly indicate that there will be some very close scrutiny of this matter by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. If necessary, I will press my colleagues for a reopening of the public hearings on that matter and start calling some of these officers to give an explanation of why, in the past, they have given us contradictory advice. If, however, the Minister is saying that some special legal arrangements will be made to provide to commissions of inquiry documents which are not discoverable to members of the Australian Parliament in the pursuit of matters which are before the Parliament by way of legislation, then I indicate to the Minister that a very interesting debate will be opened in due course. We were given assurances in regard to the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill which we debated last year and in which certain new charges were raised, largely to inhibit people from making use of that Act. I wish to make one other comment relating to the remarks made by Senator Coates when he was attempting to respond to the point put by Senator Watson about the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and this attempt to say that the funding for operations such as the Commission of Inquiry to be established under this legislation could not be provided for in more substantive pieces of legislation and had to be financed by some under the table arrangement from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Senator Watson drew attention to the way in which the initial funding for the planning, research and development of the Australia Card was handled. I think that wise people could have presumed that the Australia Card was unlikely to get through this Parliament, almost from day one. Nevertheless, well in advance of the drawing of the legislation, appropriations were sought to advance the planning and research on the Australia Card. They were put into a piece of legislation which, if my memory serves me correctly, was called the National Health Amendment Bill towards the end- Senator Sanders —On a point of order: Senator Puplick is entering into a second reading stage speech on the Australia Card. We are discussing the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill and the functions of that Commission. I ask the Chair to examine closely the relevance of his contribution to this debate. Senator Puplick —Also on that point of order: We are discussing clause 8, which relates to the functions of the Commission of Inquiry. Presumably, in order to function, the Commission needs money. Presumably Senator Sanders believes that one functions in government departments by bringing money out of the air. Senator Sanders —What has that to do with the Australia Card? You have already bored us to tears with the Australia Card. You have spent hours and hours, days and days discussing it and disrupting Parliament. Senator Puplick —I am making a point about the functioning of the Commission which is being established under clause 8, and I believe the method by which the operation is proposed to be financed is a matter which is appropriate to this debate. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I believe that Senator Puplick's remarks flow from the answer that was given by the Minister, Senator Sanders. There is no point of order. Senator PUPLICK —Thank you. I was saying that what happened in that instance was that in the National Health Amendment Bill funds were sought to establish and finance a secretariat within the Department of Health and the Health Insurance Commission to undertake certain planning. When the Bill came to the Senate we said that we would not pass that appropriation until such time as a joint select committee had been established to look at the question of the Australia Card and we then allowed the matter to proceed. The Government, in its dealings with the Australia Card, could have used precisely the same argument as Senator Coates and Senator Ryan have been attempting to use here-namely, that in the absence of a piece of legislation one has to get the money under the heading of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. If that becomes the norm, the Advance to the Minister for Finance will be used to fund all of the things which the Government believes it could not fund by proper legislative appropriation through the Parliament. That, again, is an equally dangerous precedent to be established because it removes from the Parliament the capacity to scrutinise the way in which government funds are spent, the way in which public funds are spent, in what is a substantive legislative enactment of the Parliament. Under those circumstances, one would see the use of the funds provided in the Advance to the Minister for Finance for all of those things which the Government believes that the Parliament would not otherwise tolerate. As a matter of principle, it is interesting to have the Minister tell us today, in answer to two specific points-one raised by Senator Watson and the other raised by Senator Newman-that whole new areas of approach to the way in which the Government will operate are being cobbled together in a piece of legislation which ought to be specifically designed to address environmental matters. A perversion of the Freedom of Information Act and a perversion of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and its proper role within the financing of Australian Government operations is being carried out in exactly the same way as the violence to the Constitution is being done under the heading of some sort of environmental legislation. If this is allowed to continue as a matter of precedent, the Parliament will be very severely compromised in fulfilling its proper legislative role. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.27) —I simply must respond briefly because I cannot possibly accept Senator Puplick's wildly extravagant claims about perversions of various courses of action. I have said, in response to the matter of the practice of the Parliament in relation to funds for legislative matters not yet enacted, that further information is being sought. I also said in reply to Senator Newman's question, relating to documents that have been withheld under the Freedom of Information Act and their accessibility to the Commission, that further information is being sought. But I point out that clause 13 gives the Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests the investigative powers that arise from the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.28) —Can the Minister for Education tell me, as she says that it is quite usual for the Government to behave in this way, whether there has been any appropriation in the present estimates for the Department of Health relating to the Australia Card? Senator Ryan —Out of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —I believe that question is out if order. Senator Walters —I take a point of order. What the Minister has just said is that it is usual practice that no appropriation is made before legislation is passed through the Senate. The Australia Card has not gone through the Senate. I am asking a simple question. If what the Minister has said is correct, she has assured us that there will be no appropriation in the present Estimates, in the Department of Health or any-where else, for the Australia Card. I am asking the Minister: Is that a fact? Senator COATES(Tasmania)(9.29) —Without wishing to help to turn this debate into one about the Australia Card, as everyone knows, the functions of the Health Insurance Commission were extended by this Parliament to include preparation for the Australia Card. Therefore, the Parliament approved that function and, therefore, it was appropriate that funds in preparation for it were applied for. We are talking about a totally different situation now. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Excuse me, Senator Coates, are you speaking to the point of order or are you attempting to answer Senator Walters's question? Senator COATES —I am dealing with the issue that has been raised. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I will deal with the point of order first. I ruled that the question was out of order because I do not think it necessarily follows that the Minister, in dealing with this Bill, could be expected to answer a question on a completely different matter, even though some people seem to find some relevance in it. The matter should be determined by the Minister, if she wishes to reply. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.30) —I find myself in agreement with the honourable senator's judgment on this matter, but I will certainly undertake to find out for Senator Walters the nature of any estimates that were sought for the Australia Card. Senator Walters —Will that information be available before we get up today? Senator RYAN —I am sure that will be possible. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.30) —I refer to clause 8, sub-section (2), which examines the employment of persons in forestry operations and the effect that a reduction in those operations would have on that employment. I seek from the Minister assurances as to what the Government is going to do in relation to job losses in the Tasmanian forestry industry as a result of the passage of this legislation. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.31) —As I said earlier, if there is any damage in this specific case, if there are job losses arising from the setting up of the inquiry, the persons affected may seek compensation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.31) —Does that mean that anyone who suffers any sort of job loss, directly or indirectly, as a result of this inquiry, will be able to claim compensation? That is what the Minister has said. I was delighted to hear the Minister say that. If we look at what Senator Richardson said-he was one of the senior speakers for the Government on this-- Senator Coates —Quote him in full this time. Senator WALTERS —I am quoting from Hansard. Senator Coates —Quote both sentences this time. Senator WALTERS —I am. He said: There is no cutting off of any possibility of compensation for anyone in Tasmania-- Senator Coates —Read the previous sentence. Senator WALTERS —How much further back would the honourable senator like me to read? Senator Coates —One sentence. Senator WALTERS —One sentence-good. He said: Where a person not covered by the compensation provision in the Bill considers that he or she has suffered loss or damage as a result of the legislation, the Government furthermore will consider compensation for that person as a matter of policy. So one has to say that this Government has looked-- Senator Sanders —Madam Temporary Chairman, I raise a point or order. I draw your attention to the fact that the Chair has already ruled that the compensation would be covered in clause 19. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —That is absolutely correct, Senator Sanders. Senator Walters, you are out of order. Senator Walters —Madam Temporary Chairman, I wish to speak to the point of order. Clauses 8 (1) (c) and 8 (2) (c) both refer to loss of jobs. We are seeking assurance that, because both refer to loss of jobs and because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has given us an undertaking that there will be no loss of jobs, there will be compensation for anyone losing a job. I am still attempting to read the Hansard. Obviously Senator Sanders is just not interested in jobs in Tasmania. I am trying to read, for Senator Coates's benefit, what Senator Richardson said. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, you are now debating the point of order. Senator Coates —Madam Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. This clause is dealing with the inquiry and the report, and it is clause 19 that deals with compensation. While there are references to what the Committee shall inquire into and report upon, the question of compensation ought to be dealt with under the appropriate clause. The Opposition opposed the Bill being dealt with as a whole, yet it is trying to have a broad debate on every clause. Senator Walters —I did not refer to compensation; it was the Minister in her answer who referred to compensation. Senator Watson asked what assurance would be given about the loss of jobs. He did not mention compensation. It was the Minister who assured us that compensation would be given for loss of jobs; it was not us who raised it. Now we are asking the Minister about that as a response to her question. So I am quite sure that the point of order is just not right. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, it is a nice point because there is no doubt in anybody's mind that the loss of jobs and compensation will be linked. In clause 2 there is an obvious reference to the employment of persons and a diminution in the operations. However, a ruling has been given that those questions of compensation are closely and unavoidably linked with the loss of employment and they should be dealt with under clause 19. If the Minister wishes to answer, of course, there is no doubt she will do so; but it seems more logical to deal with this, as was suggested earlier by the Chairman, under clause 19. Senator Walters —Does that mean that we cannot ask the Minister any questions on her answer? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —No, it does not mean that. I am simply asking for a little co-operation and sanity. Senator Walters —May I continue with my question to the Minister? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —You may. Senator WALTERS —I read from Hansard. Senator Richardson said: There is no cutting off of any responsibility of compensation for anyone in Tasmania who considers himself or herself to be affected by this Bill. So, as the honourable senator said, there is no possibility of any cut off. The Minister has again assured us that compensation will be paid for loss of jobs. I now ask the Minister: Does that apply to everyone who has any loss of income either directly of indirectly as a result of this inquiry? Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.37) —I would just like to point out that this whole argument is really moot because no jobs will be affected by this. The only reason logging is being carried out in these areas anyway is to force this issue with the Federal Government. (Quorum formed) As I was pointing out, there really is no job loss entailed because the forestry operations that are currently being conducted in the Southern Forests and in the Lemonthyme are simply being conducted to force an issue with the Federal Government. Robin Gray wants to make an issue out of this. The only way that he can stay in power is by raising these spurious issues. Therefore, the logging that is going on there now is not necessary to either the employment or the continued output of logging in Tasmania. We have the shrieking of these Gray-bellied Tasmanian chainsaw birds on my right. The female of the species gives a call that is a strident shriek. Senator Newman —How long did it take you to figure that out? Senator SANDERS —There is one over there. The male call is a rather boring croak. They go on and on. They are obviously running a filibuster here. They do not want to agree with reason and common sense and come up with a reasonable way of looking at this whole forestry system in Tasmania. In fact they are afraid to have an independent inquiry into forestry in Tasmania because they know that such an inquiry would find that the Tasmanian Forestry Commission is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the logging companies and is operating in their interests. They are afraid of a dispassionate observation of it. (Quorum formed) At first this was just a rather flatulent filibuster of this discussion by the Tasmanian troglodytic senators. Now we find that the Opposition as a whole is buying into this. This indicates what the Opposition in general thinks of environmental matters. Senator Puplick, who claims to be a somewhat wet Liberal and who alleges to care a bit about the environment, is the one calling these quorums. He is the one who is delaying the proceedings of the chamber. He is one who is costing the Senate money. The man who sits behind him, Senator Michael Baume, should be very interested in his Waste Watch Committee costing how much Senator Puplick's two quorum calls have cost the people of Australia. I urge the honourable senator to consider this in the future. I wish to delay the chamber no longer. I just point out that we have matters of substance to discuss. However, the Opposition does not seem either willing or capable of discussing them. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.42) —I refer to clause 8 (2) again, which refers to a reduction in the forestry operations as a result of this Bill reducing these operations and the consequences on employment. Senator Sanders has already stated that no jobs will be affected. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has also said that the Federal Government is not trying to put people out of work. Therefore, I ask two questions: Firstly, why is there a paragraph in this legislation that asks the inquiry to find ways to minimise job losses? Secondly, as the only assurance that the Minister can give us so far on job losses relates to compensation, I ask her: What other mechanisms or means of assurances does the Government have in mind to find ways to minimise job losses as a result of this legislation before the chamber? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.44) —I think the import of Senator Watson's questions is to ask me to pre-empt the inquiry. An inquiry is being established to investigate the matters that Senator Watson raised. At this stage we do not know whether there will be job losses or of what dimension they will be, if there are any at all. It is for the inquiry to report back on these matters. Once that happens we will be in a position to answer Senator Watson's questions. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.45) —The Minister says that she does not know whether there will be any job losses. The Government does not know whether there will be any job losses. It does know how many job losses there will be. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has already assured us on several occasions that there will be none. Will the Minister please tell us who is right. Is she right, or is the Prime Minister right? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.45) —I suggest that Senator Walters and Senator Watson address themselves to the clauses in the legislation which set out that we are setting up an inquiry to investigate these matters. Claims have been made that the protection of these parts of the forest would cause job losses. We are not convinced of that. Therefore, we are setting up an inquiry. If that inquiry reports that there could be job losses caused by cessation of logging in particular areas then the next question is what course of action will be taken. But the whole point of the inquiry is to investigate both the claims of Senator Sanders that there will be no job losses and the claims of Senator Walters that there will be job losses. We are setting up an inquiry to investigate these matters. I cannot anticipate the results of that inquiry. It would be entirely improper of me to attempt to do so. Clause agreed to. Clause 9 agreed to. Clause 10 (Hearings). Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.46) —I ask the Minister why it is that in clause 10 (2) there is a provision to allow the Commission to hold hearings within or outside Australia, as the presiding member determines. In these days of economic stringency and given the topic to be investigated, I see no justification whatsoever for providing the opportunity to this Commission to meet outside Australia, unless this Government already regards Tasmania as being outside Australia. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.47) —I will not comment on the tendentious ending to Senator Newman's question. The provision is simply there in the case of it being necessary for the Commission in the course of its work to go out of Australia, but the expectation is that it will not be necessary. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.47) —Is the Minister prepared to take out the provision so as to make sure that we do not have any unnecessary waste? Presiding officers of these commissions sometimes get delusions of grandeur. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.47) —The Government seeks agreement to the clause in its present form. Clause agreed to. Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to. Clause 13 (Application of Royal Commissions Act). Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.48) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 7, subclause 13 (1), line 14, after `1902', insert `(other than sections 6a and 6dd of that Act)'. (2) Page 7, after subclause 13 (3), insert the following new subclauses: `(3a) Section 3 of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 in its application in accordance with subsection (1) of this section has effect as if the following subsection were inserted after subsection (2) of that section: `(2a) It is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (2) for a person to refuse or fail to produce a document or other thing that the production of the document or other thing might tend to incriminate the person.'. `(3b) Section 6 of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 in its application in accordance with subsection (1) of this section has effect as if: (a) `without reasonable excuse' were inserted in subsection (1) of that section after `refuses'; and (b) the following subsection were inserted after subsection (1) of that section: `(1a) It is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (1) for a person to refuse to answer any question that the answer might tend to incriminate the person.'.'. In response to Senator Sanders, I point out that Tasmanian senators in this chamber have every right to debate this Bill as hard as they wish. The Commonwealth Government is seeking to ride roughshod over a State and over an industry which is of vital consequence to the people of Tasmania. Not only will employment possibly be jeopardised now but it certainly will be in the future. I recall saying during my speech in the second reading debate that people are waiting to invest, particularly in value added industries associated with the forest industry in Tasmania. Tasmanians have every right to fight as hard as they are. It is a nonsense for another senator from Tasmania to seek to put them down in any way, shape or form. In our amendments to clause 13 we are picking up the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, from which I quote: The Committee has been critical of such provisions- and in times past, I might add- which remove the right to refuse to answer questions or produce documents on grounds of self incrimination but which confer protection in subsequent proceedings only in respect of the use of the actual answer given or document produced. This has obviously been raised previously by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is operating under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and the Opposition has taken up the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's recommendations and put them into amendments. That is why we are moving them at this stage. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.50) —I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I must say that in the hearings the Committee has had since I have been a member I have been impressed by the usually quite sedate language that its reports have been couched in. I draw to this Committee's attention the criticism which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has seen fit to make of clause 13. It is uncharacteristic of that Committee to speak in this language. It is very important to note that on this piece of legislation which we, in Tasmania anyway, believe is of such importance the Committee said that the Minister's response to the concerns which the Committee had already expressed about clause 13, `Self incrimination', suggests: . . . that the present Bill has been thrown together in a hasty and slipshod fashion with more concern for ensuring that the Commission is enabled to operate `satisfactorily' than for the consequences of applying, in a blanket fashion, provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 which may be wholly inappropriate to the nature of the Commission's inquiry. The Committee insisted that by applying sections of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 which remove the `privilege against self incrimination to the inquiry it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties' of the citizen. In view of this damning report from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee I have to ask: Does the Government intend to take any action to stop trespassing on personal rights and liberties of the citizen? Will the Government accept our amendments? They are perfectly in tune with the recommendations of the Committee. The Committee drew attention to the fact that section 6a of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 provides that `self-incrimination is not to be an excuse for the refusal or failure to produce a document or to answer questions as required by the Commission'. Section 6dd further provided that `a statement or disclosure made by a witness in giving evidence is not admissible against the witness in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings'. In the view of that Committee report, the protection should extend to any information or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the giving of the answer or of the production of the document. The right to refuse to give answers to questions where it may result in a person being required to incriminate himself or herself is one of the most important protections available at common law. It should not be taken away lightly. So let us not forget that the Committee was so concerned about the right of the citizen being removed in this situation that it used quite uncharacteristic language in drawing the Senate's attention to the need for amendment to this legislation. As a result of the Government ignoring the Committee's report we in the Opposition have decided that we must take action in this area and produce the amendments which the shadow Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Senator Collard, has just moved. I urge the Minister to have the Government take these amendments on board because if this legislation is passed, which due to the perfidy of the Australian Democrats seems likely, it at least should provide some basic protections for the citizen. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.54) —I refer to clause 13 (1) (b), which is one of the most important provisions of this Bill because it attempts to compel the State Government to provide information to this inquiry. The manner in which the Government is going about this matter raises a number of questions which are of some concern to our civil libertarians and to people interested in democracy. I ask: Has there been a similar attempt in the history of Federation by a Commonwealth to force a State government, if it is reluctant, to provide information to a Federal inquiry? Can the Minister explain what mechanism the Government intends to use if it is necessary to enforce the Commission's purported right to compel State witnesses to give information before the inquiry? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.55) —Can the Minister tell us whether this is the first time the Commonwealth has attempted to force a State government to give such information? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.56) —A number of questions have been raised relating to clause 13. The last question raised by Senator Walters will require some investigation, since her question has some historical relevance, I suppose. The Government, in deciding that the application of the Royal Commissions Act was the best way to go in empowering the Commission to carry out its duties, considered other ways in which the Commission could have been empowered. However, it decided that the Royal Commissions Act was the most appropriate one in relation to the purposes of this inquiry. The concerns of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills were drawn to the attention of the Minister, Mr Cohen, and he responded. Although that response is already on record in this debate, I think that, since there has been a lot of interest, I should put it on the record again. The Minister wrote: The Committee's first comment relates to the application of section 6a and 6dd of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 through the provisions of clause 13 of the Bill. Rather than create a completely new set of machinery provisions for the Commission, the approach adopted in the Bill is to apply the provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 with only those changes which are necessary to enable the Commission to operate satisfactorily. It is likely that there may be provisions of the Royal Commissions Act, as applied, which will not be used by the Commission of Inquiry e.g. sections 6p, 7a, 7b and 7c. It is considered that, although possible, it is unlikely that any question of self-incrimination would arise, given the terms of reference of the Commission, (i.e. an inquiry into the existence of world heritage areas and alternatives to forestry operations in those areas). The other issue raised by the Committee concerns the power of entry on land given by paragraph 14 (c) of the Bill and it stated: There are important qualifications on the power given in paragraph 14 (c). First, the person entering the area must be doing so for the purpose of exercising his or her powers or functions under the Act. Secondly, it is only those areas which contain forestry resources which are able to be entered under paragraph 14 (c) i.e. for the purposes of examining those resources-the trees. It does not enable entry into premises and it is not a comprehensive power of `search'. Therefore, it is not comparable to the search warrant provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902. In my opinion, the power is necessary to enable the Commission of Inquiry to examine forestry resources which may be alternative to those in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forest areas and report within the one year inquiry period. This relatively short time frame has been decided upon so as to cause least disruption to Tasmania and its forestry industry. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(9.59) —I thank the Minister for reading out the other Minister's response. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the response was available to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and on both clauses-we are not yet considering clause 14-the Committee rejected the Minister's view. The Committee said that, if the Government considers it `unlikely that the question of self-incrimination will arise, given the nature of the Commission's inquiry, then in the Committee's view the protection from self-incrimination available at common law should not be removed at all'. If there is no fear of self-incrimination arising, why take away the protection against self-incrimination? Progress reported. Senator CHANEY —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that a study by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research Pty Ltd shows a significant increase in poverty in Australia over the last four years? Is it correct that the study found that there has been an almost one per cent increase in the total number of families living below the updated Henderson poverty line and that for families with four or more children the increase is almost 4 per cent? Is it a fact that larger families have been worst hit because for them the loss of value of family allowance payments has been the most dramatic? Given the Australian Labor Party's constant use of poverty line data to attack the policies of the previous Government, I ask: Are the Minister and the Government concerned about these findings? Can the Hawke Government offer anything to these low income families other than its phoney price watch gimmickry? Senator BUTTON —The Government is concerned and if it is to offer something it will announce it at an appropriate time. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I understand that in May last year the Minister said that he had referred to the Attorney-General the Vietnam Veterans Association's detailed critique in relation to the report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. Will the Minister advise the Senate whether he has received advice from the Attorney-General on the Vietnam veterans' submission arising from the royal commission into Agent Orange? How long ago did he receive the response? When will he make a further statement on the Government's position on the Agent Orange submission? Senator GIETZELT —I have received advice from the Attorney-General in respect of the concerns expressed by the Vietnam Veterans Association about some of the findings and statements made in the royal commission inquiry. Following that response I wrote to the Prime Minister who currently has my letter before him. To take the matter to the next logical step is to appoint a consultant to advise me on how we can best respond to many of the recommendations made in the royal commissioner's report and how we will co-ordinate the responses from the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How long ago did he receive the response and when will he make a further statement on the Government's position? Senator GIETZELT —I will make a further statement as soon as the Prime Minister approves the appointment. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Following Senator Newman's revelation that an autho-rity under the control of the Minister proposed to pay the tertiary fee for some of its teachers and the Minister's assurance that she was re-examining the matter, I ask: Firstly, what does the Minister now intend to do in relation to the higher education administration charge payable by those teachers who were the subject of the question? Secondly, for which employees in other Commonwealth departments or authorities have similar arrangements been made to pay the tertiary fee on their behalf? Thirdly, since payment of the fee is a fringe benefit, what allowance has been made for payment of fringe benefits tax in respect of the proposed fee payments either in the Minister's portfolio or others? Finally, if the Minister now decides to disallow the benefit, by how much will fringe benefits payments be reduced within the Australian Capital Territory education authority and where do they appear in the Estimates? Senator RYAN —As Senator Baume acknow-ledged in his question, the decision of an officer within my Department that the higher education administration charge would be paid in certain cases, such as that of technical and further education teachers without teacher qualifications who are undertaking part time teacher education courses as a term and condition of their employment, is being investigated. It is being investigated by officers of my Department, the Department of Finance and other departments. That investigation is not yet complete, but it does go to matters raised by Senator Baume's question other than the matter of the fringe benefits tax. I will make sure that the inquiry also goes to that matter and, when I have a full account of this and am in a position to know what course of action is open to the Government, I will report fully to the Senate. Senator MAGUIRE —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the distorted and misleading comparisons of provincial cities in South Australia and Queensland in the Adelaide Advertiser yesterday. I ask in particular whether his attention has been drawn to the outrageous comment that Port Pirie is `a shabby and depressed smelting port'. Does the Minister have any information on the comparative economic performances of those areas in South Australia and Queensland outside the capital cities? Senator WALSH —I have seen an article in yesterday's Adelaide Advertiser written by someone called Rex Jory, which is a name I think I have heard before. Senator Messner —He used to be the political editor here for the Adelaide News. Senator WALSH —I thought he was a Murdoch hack, or an ex-Murdoch hack. Appended to a photograph is the description of Port Pirie as `a shabby and depressed smelting port'. It is ironic that Jory should have written that just as the proprietors of the Port Pirie smelter have announced a $50m new investment proposal, to be spread over the next four years. I suppose that that is about the level of accuracy one would expect from an ex-Murdoch hack, or a practising Murdoch hack. The thrust of the Jory article is that the Bjelke-Petersen bandwagon is going to roll into South Australia, or the electorate of Grey, or will be dragged in if the wheels have fallen off by then. The real point of Senator Maguire's question is whether the electorate of Grey would be likely to be better or worse off if Bjelke-Petersen policies were adopted. The answer to that is clearly that it would be worse off. Non-metropolitan unemployment in Queensland is presently running at 11.4 per cent, while in South Australia it is 9 per cent-higher than any of us would like, of course. Nevertheless, if the Bjelke-Petersen bandwagon, whether rolled in or towed in like a sled, were to come to the electorate of Grey another 2 per cent of people could expect to be unemployed. In addition to that it is well known, as I, among others, have stated many times in the Senate and in regard to which I have released information many times in the Senate, that Queensland's economic performance as a whole, whether metropolitan or non-metropolitan, by any important economic indicator is well behind that of any other mainland State. Senator COLLARD —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the honourable gentleman to his announcement in January that `any new Government proposal affecting business must be cleared with the Business Regulation Review Unit'. Did the Government refer to the Unit the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill which is currently before the Senate? If not, why not, given that this legislation, if passed, will have a major impact on the Tasmanian forest industry? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to answer that question precisely. I think the position is that all Cabinet submissions are referred in normal circumstances to the Business Regulation Review Unit. Whether that happened in this case, or whether there was an omission in this case, I do not know. I will certainly find out for the honourable senator and give him an answer. Senator BLACK —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations indicate what the unemployment rate currently is among 15- to 19-year-olds? Is it true that this rate is worse now than it was when the Hawke Government assumed office in 1983? Senator WALSH —In relation to the last part of the question, it is certainly not true that the rate of unemployment among 15- to 19-year-olds is higher now than it was four years ago. I do not seem to have the precise figures, but I think the unemployment rate in that age group is higher than anybody would like to see it. But from memory, I believe, it has fallen about 4 per cent between March of 1983 and the present figure. In June of 1983 the rate peaked at something like 25.7 per cent. However, that figure is subject to confirmation. So there has been, as with unemployment generally, a significant fall in the unemployment rate in the last four years. The other point which Senator Ryan mentioned yesterday or the day before, which I think is important enough to repeat, is that that figure refers to the 15- to 19-year-olds who are counted as being in the labour force-that is, either employed or available for employment. Therefore, the figure obviously excludes all of those people who are still at school or who, for some other reason, are not in the labour force. I think at present the figure is something just under 20 per cent-not 20 per cent of all people in that 15- to 19-year-old age group but 20 per cent of that proportion of the 15- to 19-year-old age group who are in the labour force either employed or seeking employment. Senator HAINES —My question, which I direct to the Minister for Finance, follows a question asked yesterday by Senator Chaney which referred to reports in the Press that the Government is considering selling off a large number of government enterprises, including the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Aussat Pty Ltd, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd-at least that is what the reports say. What net economic benefits would flow from the sale of these enterprises, given any reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement which would result from their sale would be offset by private sector borrowing, almost certainly overseas borrowing, in order to finance their purchase? Further, does the Minister agree that the sale of these enterprises would be consistent with this Government's overall reliance on a deregulated market, even where this conflicts with party policy and results in policy indistinguishable from that which would be pursued by the Opposition if it were ever to win government? Senator WALSH —In relation to the last part of the question, though not the last line, there is no correlation necessarily or indeed any correlation in practice between public ownership and regulation or deregulation. As I pointed out yesterday when replying to Senator Chaney, the Thatcher Government in England has sold off public assets and formerly publicly-owned business enterprises while simultaneously increasing the degree of regulation. So both in principle and in practice in some countries at least recently there is necessarily no correlation at all between regulation or deregulation and public ownership. Turning to the first part of the question, consistent with what I have been saying for two years or more, I will not confirm or deny whatever rumour the Press Gallery is running today or yesterday, whether the rumour was generated by the Press Gallery itself or fed to it by somebody from outside. The central part of the question concerned what net economic benefits would flow from the sale of government enterprises. There is no simple answer to that. But the point ought to be made that if government property, whether it be real property like land or buildings or whether it be a publicly-owned trading enterprise, is not returning a yield on its value at least equal to the market rate of interest, the sale of such a property would obviously yield short term gains. However, it would also yield ongoing benefits to the public and to the Budget because the public debt would be reduced by an amount commensurate to its sale compared with what it would otherwise have been and the public debt interest obligation in perpetuity likewise would be reduced. Senator Haines also mentioned overseas borrowing and so on. Well, somebody-no matter who; whether it is the Government or some private source-as long as we are running a current account deficit, must borrow from overseas to match that deficit. The final point is that the Australian Government does own assets overseas as well as in Australia and, if the continued ownership of those assets cannot be justified in economic terms, there are very clear gains to the country, from every point of view, in disposing of those assets. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It relates to recent Press reports that the Australian Shippers Council has suggested that northbound freight rates out of Australia could rise by up to 50 per cent because of the shortage of capacity on outgoing ships. This is naturally of concern to Australian exporters. It could, for instance, jeopardise our economic recovery. If this is the situation, is there any action the Government can take that would increase the capacity of outgoing ships? Senator GIETZELT —The Minister for Transport and, indeed, the Government are aware of recent Press reports that the Australian Shippers Council has suggested that freight rates from Australia could rise by up to 50 per cent because of a shortage of empty containers in Australia. This situation arises because of the almost dramatic change in the import-export industry resulting from the Government's good management of the economy and the fact that there is an increase in the volume of our exports. That is the result, of course, of our increasing competitiveness in world markets. That situation arises because of some of the financial decisions that have been made in recent times. It is reflected in the 30 to 40 per cent fall in demand for import shipping space at the same time as a dramatic increase in demand for export space, particularly to Europe and the northern Asian region. This is, of course, a complete turnaround from the situation that existed when we came to government in March 1983. In other words, exports are up and imports are down and this has resulted in the necessity for some change in the arrangements and that inevitably results in a change in costs. The Minister for Transport, accordingly, has established a process of monitoring the freight rate changes, and has discussed some of these matters with the major shipping conferences with the objective of taking whatever steps are available to government to rectify the situation. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. What has been the impact of the decision in 1983 to modify the income equalisation deposits scheme for farmers? Does the Government accept that this decision has reduced lending moneys available to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd by about $150m per annum, as well as denying farmers the ability to smooth out their tax burdens should farm incomes show a significant improvement? Would it be in the best interests of all Australians for the export-oriented farm producers to regain their access to a more meaningful and effective income equalisation deposits scheme? Senator WALSH —I find it somewhat ironic that Senator Brownhill should refer to the income equalisation deposits scheme enabling farmers to smooth out their taxable income, because the plain fact is that when John Howard was Treasurer and the National Party of Australia was last governing Australia the income equalisation deposits scheme had been corrupted by changes to the tax averaging provisions introduced by the Fraser Government and John Howard at the insistence of the National Party in the late 1970s. It enabled farmers to opt in or out of the tax averaging provisions at will. I will not go into all the technical details because they are too complicated, but the plain fact is that, because of that corrupt change introduced by John Howard at the insistence of the National Party, there was a positive incentive for farmers to destabilise their taxable incomes by putting money into income equalisation deposits in years of low income and drawing it out in years of high income. So the income equalisation deposits scheme in its corrupt form, as last practised by John Howard on the instructions of the National Party, had an effect which was the reverse of that which it was supposed to have. As for the Primary Industry Bank, again at the insistence of the National Party, when John Howard was Treasurer a pea and thimble trick was pulled under which money was made available from income equalisation deposits. At one stage I think the interest rate paid on the depo-sits was 5 per cent and the money was lent out at the same rate. The pea and thimble trick, of course, was that this was some costless way of providing money to the farm sector at below commercial rates of interest. Of course, it was not costless. Moreover, to the extent that that money was made available to the Primary Industry Bank to make soft loans, sometimes at sub-commercial interest rates, it fed the land price speculation boom of the late 1970s and the early 1980s and encouraged many farmers to buy land at excessive prices, which is the direct reason for a significant number of them being insolvent today. In other words, from any aspect at all, the income equalisation deposits, both in principle and in effect, as practised by John Howard when the National Party was last the de facto government of Australia, operated to the disadvantage of the farm sector and the country as a whole. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether the Government is aware of a report detailing major concerns about Queensland's economic performance. Can the Minister say whether the claims in the report are substantially correct? Can he also tell the Senate where the report emanates from? Senator WALSH —I am aware of a quite large report dealing with Queensland's economic performance under the Petersen Government. It is 23 pages in all. I am sure that Senator Chaney quite justifiably would complain if I were to read out the whole 23 pages during Question Time. The report emanates from the office of the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair. I table the 23-page document. Senator JESSOP —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs able to inform the Senate of the direct cost to the Commonwealth involved in transporting, accommodating and promoting Mr Oliver Tambo, the leader of the self-professed terrorist organisation the African National Congress, and his entourage on their visit to Australia? Senator Georges —Cut it out. What nonsense are you talking? Senator JESSOP —He is the self-professed leader of a terrorist organisation. Can the Minister also inform the Senate of the estimated cost of the security arrangements for this visit, and also the cost of the security arrangements for his visit to Nareen this weekend? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer the detailed questions about cost to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Once again, I take the opportunity to reject forcefully and unequivocally the kind of description that Senator Jessop insists on applying to Oliver Tambo and the African National Congress. Of course, violence has been perpetrated in South Africa by blacks-some of them under the auspices of the ANC-in responding to the system of oppression in that country. But I think an admirable statement of the context in which that has occurred, the reasons and, to the extent that it can be justified, the justification for it has been made by Mr Tambo during his visit in his public speeches, in particular, to the National Press Club. It is grotesquely insensitive for people like Senator Jessop to continue to malign this gentleman and the movement he stands for in the unthinking and crude way which has become all too common in this place. Senator COLEMAN —My question relates in part to the previous question that was asked of Senator Gareth Evans. I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the repulsive and, I might add, very expensive full-page advertisement in a major Australian newspaper yesterday concerning the visit of the African National Congress leader, Oliver Tambo. The advertisement appears under the authorship of a group calling itself the International Freedom Foundation, which is apparently dedicated to harassing Mr Tambo wherever he travels. Does the Minister have any information about this group or, more importantly, who is really behind it? Does he consider such a development a healthy contribution to the world-wide concern and debate over the future of apartheid in South Africa? Given the further publicity in today's newspaper and, I understand, also on a morning television program about the gentleman who proclaims that he represents the International Freedom Foundation, what action will the Government take to ensure that if Mr Geoff Pandin does open an information office in Australia he operates it in accordance with the laws of Australia and not with the laws of gay abandon? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that an organisation calling itself the International Freedom Foundation took out a full page advertisement in the Australian on 2 April which was critical of the ANC and Mr Tambo in particular. That is a considerable understatement, I suppose, because it is a grotesque and repulsive advertisement, as Senator Coleman said. At this stage there is very little public information available about the IFF. Press reports today claim that it was founded six months ago in the United States by a Mr Jack Abramoff and has since established offices in Tel Aviv, London and Johannesburg, and has plans to establish an office in Melbourne. A visiting United States citizen, Mr Pandin, who has taken part in demonstrations in Australia against Mr Tambo's visit, is reportedly a spokesman for this organisation. The background to Mr Tambo's visit and the auspices under which he is in Australia have been frequently stated by the Foreign Minister, and by me in this place. He is in Australia at the invitation of the Foreign Minister to put his views to the Australian public on an issue of major international importance-the future of southern Africa. People do, of course, have the right to express their views freely, and that would be the overriding consideration in any government reaction to the opening of an office by this organisation in Australia and the behaviour of spokesmen for it. The advertisement taken out by the IFF obviously does not contribute to serious, constructive or dispassionate debate about the future of black political rights in South Africa of the kind that this Government seeks to foster. We would deplore contributions to the debate that continue to be made in such strident and emotional terms. Of course, it will be the case that such an operation would have to be maintained within the law as it presently stands. While I do not imagine that the Government will take any special steps in this respect to oversight what is going on in respect of this organisation, clearly, if there is any question of it stepping beyond the bounds of the law, the Government will react accordingly. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it a fact that there are still many beds closed at repatriation hospitals around Australia at this time? Is it true that, while some of the closures are due to reconstruction work, many are due to industrial disputations and a lack of sufficient nursing staff? Will the Minister advise the Senate of the steps he is taking to ensure that a maximum number of beds are made operational in all of the repatriation hospitals around Australia to take care of veterans, many of whom are entering critical phases of their lives? Senator GIETZELT —I find the question from Senator Bjelke-Petersen very unusual, having regard to the fact that there is a critical shortage of beds in the Queensland hospital system. There must surely be some concern about that particular problem. It places tremendous pressure upon my department which is required by law to provide treatment and hospital beds for entitled veterans. On occasions this results in the hospital at Greenslopes, Queensland, admitting an unusually large number of community patients, thus creating difficulties for the hospital whose main purpose is to provide accommodation and treatment for entitled veterans. The only problem I have about repatriation beneficiaries in the hospitals is the acute shortage of trained nurses. Of course, the Opposition parties, which do not believe in intervention in the economy at all, can accept part of the blame for giving insufficient attention over past years to training opportunities for women who want to enter the nursing service. There is no way that this Government can be blamed for that acute shortage of trained personnel. In the light of that difficulty, of course I have problems in our providing every hospital with sufficient trained staff so that our requirements are met. We have taken steps. For example, we went to the United Kingdom in the early part of 1986 to recruit, through the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, a number of English nurses to accommodate the problem. No problem can be traced back to the Department or to the Repatriation Commission in these areas. We are grappling with a difficult problem, that of not having sufficient trained staff. We have other resources-beds and medicos-but we are not always able to provide sufficient trained staff to meet the need. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on industrial disputes which were released yesterday? If the Minister has seen these statistics, can he indicate what light these figures shed on the effectiveness of the Hawke Government's policies in the industrial relations area? Senator WALSH —I have seen the most recent ABS figures on industrial disputes. They show that the total number of working days lost in the 1986 calendar year was 1,390,000. By contrast, the figure in 1982-the last year of the Fraser-Howard Government-was 2,158,000. In other words, a 75 per cent larger number of working days were lost because of industrial disputes. Mr Willis pointed out yesterday that over the past three years the average annual working days lost per thousand employees was 240, compared with an annual average of 590 during the Fraser-Howard Government years. The figure for the period of this Government is less than half it was during the period of the Fraser-Howard Government. That is one of the factors which demonstrate the success of the incomes policy-the accord-which the Government has implemented over the last four years. It is in contrast to both the record of the previous Government and the intention of the present Opposition-should it ever be elected to government. It is the clearly stated intention-stated with some relish, I might say-of the present Leader of the Opposition to have five years of industrial warfare. Senator MacGIBBON —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence any information to give the Senate about the circumstances surrounding the tragic loss of an F111 aircraft last night? Senator GARETH EVANS —The only information I have from the Minister so far is in the following terms: At 1939 hours last night, 2 April, F111 A8-128 crashed five miles north of Tenterfield, New South Wales, while on a low level night flight. The planned track was from East Sale to Amberley with a practice attack against a target in the Tenterfield area. The instructor pilot and student navigator were both killed. A second F111 was about eight miles behind the accident aircraft and its crew had visual contact with its lights. As they approached Tenterfield the second crew saw a flash ahead which they saw as a fire when they passed over the site. While the extent of the damage to the ground caused by the impact and post-impact fire has not been fully evaluated, it is believed that neither people were injured, nor buildings damaged. No distress call was given by the accident aircraft. A Royal Australian Air Force board of inquiry has been appointed. Senator McKIERNAN —My question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce relates to the report of the Inglis Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements which has been publicly released and is currently being considered by the Government. Given that there have been allegations put by some sectors of the business and trade union communities that government agencies have shown bias against the purchase of Australian products, is there any evidence being proffered to substantiate the claims? Does the Minister accept the allegations? When will the Government respond to the report? Senator BUTTON —I am not sure that `bias' is the correct word. It may be appropriate, but it may be too strong a word to describe the purchasing habits of some government departments which have developed over a number of years. I think those purchasing habits reflected a general tendency in the Australian community to rely on exports of raw materials as the salvation of this country and to consider that imports of equipment and machinery were of better quality. Also, there were significant incentives in some departments to purchase from overseas. For example, duty is not paid on equipment purchased from overseas and there are, of course, trips to be had for purchasing officers to purchase equipment overseas which would not be available to them if equipment was purchased in Australia. I am just saying that these general environmental factors have probably influenced the habits of certain departments. Some of these concerns led the Government to set up the Inglis Committee of Review to recommend action to enable Australian suppliers, particularly of high technology products, to compete on an equitable basis with overseas suppliers of government purchases. Government orders can provide valuable initial markets for high technology firms, enabling them to develop products which are competitive on world markets. Some people who are advocates of an entirely free market should examine, for example, the situation in the United States where the defence budget is an enormous supporter of high technology companies and research and development in the United States. Also, the Buy American Act is an Act which is frequently invoked in support of local manufacturers in the United States. I am not suggesting that we should necessarily follow that track; I am just making a point about what happens in other countries. Government purchasing can play a significant role in industry development. The report of the Inglis Committee, chaired by Sir Brian Inglis, is now under intensive study by the Government. The Government will be announcing a detailed response as soon as practicable. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Despite the Minister's earlier straight bat on the subject, I refer to recent news reports that the Government is seriously considering the sale of airport terminal facilities, and that Ansett Airlines joint-chairman, Sir Peter Abeles, has already privately offered to buy out Ansett's current leases for $100m. Are these reports true? If so, does this mean that the July 1986 national platform of the Australian Labor Party rejecting the concept of privatisation is no longer operative? On what basis does the Government suggest that the current market value or net present value of public instrumentalities should be assessed? Does the Minister agree that the sale of terminals to an existing airline operator would be likely to constitute a significant barrier to entry for new airlines in the event of a decision to deregulate the airline industry? Senator WALSH —Senator Alston said effectively that he did not expect me to answer this question, and he is right. I am not going to confirm or deny the latest piece of self-generated or received gossip that the media is running on this day or any other day. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of media speculation on the future of the Family Court which is causing concern in the community? When will the Government be able to announce a decision on this matter and so put an end to damaging speculation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have the following information from the Attorney-General on this matter. The Attorney has been concerned for some time with the need to give judges of the Family Court an opportunity to participate in other judicial work. He believes that this would benefit the judges by giving them a greater variety of work and that it would widen the field of potential recruits to the court. The Jackson Committee-the Advisory Committee to the Constitutional Commission on the Australian Judicial System-in a recent paper suggested a number of options for the future of the Family Court. These options included renewing the operation of the court by devolving work to registrars and magistrates and giving the judges of the court an opportunity to exercise a wider jurisdiction. The Jackson Committee saw these as leading to the opportunity to incorporate the Family Court as a division of the Federal Court. The Attorney did raise for the consideration of judges of both the Family Court and the Federal Court the possibility of moving immediately to incorporating the Family Court as a division of the Federal Court. Following consideration of that proposal by the judges, the Attorney subsequently discussed at a meeting of most of the judges of the Family Court on 21 March a number of steps that might be taken immediately. The Attorney announced on 25 March that a number of proposals were being developed in consultation with the Family Court. These included increased powers for registrars, appointment of masters to deal with some of the less complex contested and other matters now handled by judges, possible wider jurisdiction for State magistrates in family law matters. Discussions are being held with Federal Court and Family Court judges about the possibility of wider jurisdiction for the Family Court in areas additional to family law. No doubt when those discussions are concluded and a decision has been made, we will tell anyone who is interested about it. Senator Durack —Tell us about the family law centre-another good idea at the time? Senator GARETH EVANS —Even Senator Durack. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I refer to the Minister's decision to reject the options put up by the technical working group for water management at the Ranger uranium mine at Jabiru in the Northern Territory. Bearing in mind the expertise of the working group, which consisted of representatives of the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, Energy Resources of Australia and Ranger Mines, and the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, what equally expert advice did the Federal Minister rely upon in rejecting the recommendations of the working group? Was it in fact the case that the Minister relied on purely political advice, aimed at grabbing the greenie vote in what may be an election year, when he decided to reject the working group's recommendations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that I am perhaps in a better position than Senator Ryan, who has only a representative role in this chamber, to answer that question since I was immediately involved in the decision with my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, and I can answer accordingly from direct personal knowledge of that sequence of decision-making events. I unequivocally and absolutely reject the various premises of Senator Kilgariff's question, which pick up a rather florid and tawdry Press release that was issued by the purported Opposition spokesman on these matters, Senator Durack, a few days ago. The situation is that the Government did accept the technical and scientific advice from the Office of the Supervising Scientist as reflected in the conclusions of the technical working group. However, the concept of best practicable technology as involved in the environmental requirements for the Ranger mine involves not only the concept of technical and purely scientific factors but also the question of social factors. The Government is obliged to have regard to social factors in applying the concept of best practicable technology to the water management regime. So much was implicitly acknowledged by the technical working group in itself indica-ting that the one in 10 option might be regarded, while no better in scientific and technical terms than the two years in five release option, nonetheless as being possibly more attractive because it did have regard to possible community concerns about this and the desirability of the community, particularly the Aboriginal com- munity, having time to become accustomed to the concept of a release regime, to find out more as to what was involved in it and as a result to be less likely to react adversely to it. Social factors to that extent were already implicit in the technical working group report. The Government simply took that process one stage further by saying that, while we were prepared to accept the one in 10 option as a preli-minary response to the best practicable technology needs of water management, nonetheless we thought that it was very much worth further exploration as to whether there might be further techniques adopted or proposals developed which would reduce still further the probability of water release ever needing to be considered. It is on that basis that the Office of the Supervising Scientist is being requested, in consultation with the Ranger mine, to develop further environmentally acceptable and practicable options with a view to seeing whether we can reduce still further the probability of water release. Senator Durack —Haven't you heard of King Canute? Senator GARETH EVANS —Will you stop rabbiting on over there? You know not what you are talking about. If the honourable senator knew anything about what he is talking about, I would be delighted to respond to him, but he wallows along in the wake, bobbing like a cork on the sea of events as they pass by, a helpless case. My colleague Senator Walsh interjects `krypton', a biologically inert gasbag, that is the best description. I do not want to pursue those matters further. We have a sensible understanding in the community at large about the balance of considerations that need to be involved in any sensible approach to water management at Ranger, and with some sensible further approaches to this by the Office of the Supervising Scientist and the mine management I believe that we will have a totally acceptable solution to this long-standing problem. Senator COONEY —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. I ask him this question in the context of the release this morning in the Press of news of the Government's reform of the workers compensation Act as it applies to Commonwealth employees. I ask him whether under the reform common law is to be abolished absolutely. If so, what provisions are to be put in its place? Are there any provisions to prevent accidents happening in the work place to be enacted and are there any provisions to enable rehabilitation to take place under the new scheme? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, the legislation has not yet been drafted, so I cannot give a precise answer. It is the Government's general policy to both minimise accidents or work-caused disability and maximise the rehabilitation of people who may be so affected. In respect of the first part of the question, the policy is to remove from common law jurisdiction-to legislate to override common law, I suppose-the so-called pain and suffering provision of common law actions. I think that is absolutely essential, firstly, because pain and suffering is very difficult to determine, obviously, and secondly, it becomes a particular problem when we have both a medical profession and a judiciary in Australia so prone to make capricious and irrational judgments, as they do. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. Is it a fact that the amount paid out by home buyers has risen from 18.3 per cent of family income at the time of the last election to 26.7 per cent now? Is it also a fact that in the same period monthly repayments on a $50,000 loan over 25 years have risen from $508 to $660, an increase of more than $35 a week? Is it a fact that there are now 157,607 people on public housing waiting lists, an increase of almost one-third since the Hawke Government came to office? What excuse does the Minister give for home ownership becoming so much less affordable under the Labor Government? Senator BUTTON —I do not offer any excuse. The conditions of the Australian economy at present have created difficulties for all sections of the community. Until we can improve our national income those difficulties will continue to be felt in one way or another in certain parts of the community. The important thing for the Government is to try to alleviate the areas of greatest disability and those who suffer most from the circumstances of our incapacity to sell commodities overseas at the same prices as we did in the past. I ask the honourable senator to put the earlier part of the question on notice because it is a detailed question with five parts. Senator COATES —I ask the Special Minister of State: Does he recognise the need to protect witnesses against organised crime? If so, what plans does he have to deal with the matter? Senator TATE —I think common sense would inform honourable senators that when a law enforcement agency-in particular a joint task force established with the use of the skills of accountants in addition to those of police officers and so on-is pursuing an organised crime figure, a principal target, it may be that in order to get the sort of intelligence which is necessary either to prevent or disrupt some criminal activity or even to assemble admissible evidence in regard to that organised crime figure so that he can be arrested and brought before the courts, we need to offer to a person who can provide that sort of intelligence or evidence a guarantee of protection against violence or intimidation and even against threats of death. In that situation it is vital to the operations of law enforcement agencies and, in particular, the National Crime Authority, for which I have responsibility, that facilities for the protection of witnesses who can provide such information be available. Quite clearly, the sort of information which is so vital is more likely to be forthcoming if that protection can be offered. Arrangements have to be put in place because non-custodial protection of that sort is very expensive and very resource-intensive both in cost and in manpower in that a number of people are required to undertake such protection. It is vital that we have a full discussion not only between elements within my own portfolio, such as the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority, but also right across the various jurisdictions throughout Australia. To that end I have written to the police and corrective services Ministers in order to seek the beginning of discussions as to how we might put such witness protection programs in place in a co-operative and collaborative way. I have also taken the opportunity in a courtesy call that I paid on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority to raise with that Committee the possibility that it might, in setting its agenda for the year, consider some sort of reflection and deliberation on the question of witness protection so that the Government may be helped in its deliberations by the work of that particular Committee. It is for that Committee to set its agenda, but I noted in its second report to the Parliament that witness protection was amongst the matters which it considered ought to be the subject of some review. I hope with that sort of program of consultation we will be able to move to a situation where the law enforcement authorities will be able, more securely, to offer the protection required by witnesses who can provide very good intelligence and even admissible evidence. Senator VANSTONE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the Minister to the well-known cartoon featuring the Prime Minister at his desk with a punk hair-do and filing his nails with a rasp which has as its caption: `Youth of Australia, Priority Two. Don't call us, we'll call you'. I remind the Minister that today only 12 of the 300 Ansett Priority One: Young Australia traineeships which were announced in 1985 are in place. I ask the Minister: Firstly, when can the remaining 288 trainees expect a call? Secondly, what action is the Government taking to remedy the failure of the Priority One scheme to generate private sector traineeships? Thirdly, are certain unions holding up the negotiations and thereby denying young Australians the opportunities a traineeship would offer? Lastly, with 75,000 more 15- to 24-year olds, including 64,200 more 15- to 19-year olds unemployed since Priority One commenced, what steps will the Government take to deal with this serious problem? Senator BUTTON —I do not have the command of detail which would enable me to answer all the specific questions in that general question which the honourable senator has asked, nor is my numeracy adequate enough to cope with all those figures. I want that to be understood. I will certainly try to get the honourable senator a detailed answer on the question. The process of negotiating traineeships has been a difficult one. It was difficult initially with some of the unions. I do not think there are any difficulties remaining with the unions. There are still difficulties remaining with management in a number of areas. I am not seeking to buy into a whose fault type argument in saying that. I think that is the reality, that is the essence of the problem currently. I will try to get the honourable senator an early answer to the detailed parts of the question. Senator FOREMAN —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade to the article on the front page of the Australian Financial Review of 30 March entitled `Trade tensions rise as US, UK move against Japan'. In that article, both the United Kingdom and the United States of America were considering, or had taken, punitive steps against Japan because of its trading policies. Can the Minister state what reactions the Australian Government has to these developments and what impact such steps could have for Australia? Senator BUTTON —I think it is too early to comment on the impact of what has happened in the United States stance. I know that the Ministry of International Trade and Industry has arranged a series of negotiations with the Americans regarding the announcement made by the United States Government. I do not think those talks have been resolved at this stage. However, the Government is highly critical of the protectionist regime which is increasingly adopted by the United States Government, confronted as it is with an enormous deficit and, it appears, an incapacity to take steps to restructure many of its industries, which are clearly uncompetitive with Japan. This kind of deterioration in trade relations between two countries which are our major trading partners is a very serious matter. However, in Australia's case our major concern centres on coal and beef because they are our largest export items to Japan. We received assurances in January from the Japanese Government about coal and those assurances were repeated to Senator Evans, I believe, during his recent visit to Tokyo when he was told that trade was not being influenced by non-commercial factors. Also, in January, we received assurances that Japan had no intention of settling trade disputes with third countries at the expense of Australia. We place a very high value on these assurances and I personally have had communications with Japanese Ministers since January which confirm them. On the question of beef, we have made strong representations to the Japanese Government about developments in the market which have favoured imports from the United States. We will seek to have those matters redressed during the post-1988 beef access negotiations which begin later this year. I also draw the honourable senator's attention to recent reports about increases in beef consumption in Japan and the incapacity of the domestic industry to meet those increases in demand. So there can be some optimism about those negotiations. To return to the point of the question, I do not think that we have quite seen the end of the negotiations about the United States Government's announcements, particularly on electronic components, but we will await with interest and concern the position taken by the United States. The PRESIDENT —Order! I wish to point out to honourable senators that 24 questions were asked and answered today, which is by far the most in this session. Senator GIETZELT —On 2 April Senator Reid asked me about the development of the veterans' home care service program in the Australian Capital Territory. The current position is that officers of my department will meet the ACT Health Authority and Department of Territories officials on 9 April to discuss how the veterans' home care service program can be quickly implemented in the Australian Capital Territory. My departmental officers will also speak to the few organisations that currently provide these types of services to see what arrangements can be made for entitled veterans and their dependants. Senator Reid may also be aware that the Department of Territories has recently advertised for proposals for home and community care program funds to provide services which enable the frail aged and disabled to stay in their homes rather than move into inappropriate or premature residential care. My Department is hopeful that these funds, when allocated, will provide the infrastructure from which the veterans' home care service program can operate in the widest possible way. Motion (by Senator Vallentine)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Vallentine for the period 28 April to 14 May 1987 inclusive, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator TOWNLEY —On the front page of the Canberra Times today there was an article headed `Legislation for Australia Card lost in Senate', written by Andrew Fraser. I am afraid that it was Mr Andrew Fraser who was lost in the Senate. I wish to make it clear that I have never supported the idea of an Australia Card but I thought that an election now was not really a good idea-even though, as I said in my speech last night, I believed the Government would have regretted an election, had one been held. My main worry was that the Australian Labor Party might just have got control of both Houses of Parliament and my attitude to the Australia Card was determined because I thought that that was a risk that we did not need to take. Senator Button —I raise a point of order, Mr President. If Senator Townley had a personal explanation to make on something of that kind, we would certainly grant him leave to do so, but what we have heard so far is a statement of philosophy of dubious profundity, if I may say so. I think that this is an abuse of the procedures. Perhaps Senator Townley does wish to make some personal explanation, but he certainly has not made one to date. The PRESIDENT —Senator Townley, in a personal explanation, you must deal with the issues in which you think you have been misrepresented. Senator TOWNLEY —I thought that I sought leave to make a statement, Mr President. Senator Button —Mr President, if Senator Townley had sought leave to make a statement on a topic which was totally non-specific, I probably would not have granted him leave. Senator TOWNLEY —I am sorry, Mr President, but leave was granted. Anyway, I have nearly finished. The PRESIDENT —I have sought advice on this. Apparently Senator Townley did seek leave to make a statement; therefore he is technically correct. Senator TOWNLEY —I will not be long. I thought that the Government's gaining control of both Houses was a risk we did not need to take because we could end up with an Australia Card anyway as a result of a joint sitting of both Houses. Once the Government decided to play it safe, of course, I supported the Opposition in the vote. It was my action in that regard that was incorrectly stated by Andrew Fraser in the Canberra Times article today. I did, in fact, oppose the Bill and I voted with my Party. I would be grateful if at some time in the future the Canberra Times would correct the error it has made. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek leave to make a personal explanation relating particularly to that matter. Leave granted. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer to an article by Australian Associated Press which claimed that I had suggested in the Senate that high import costs were the major problems for Australian farmers. I draw the Senate's attention to the motion that I moved in this place: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to bring down the crippling interest rates, record levels of taxation and other costs which are devastating Australian farmers and small businesses in country towns. I referred particularly to input costs, not import costs. I said that when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) claimed that there was nothing else we could do for Australian farmers because their problems were related particularly to export prices, a child of 10 would understand that profits were what was left over after the costs had been paid and a significant rise in input costs had diminished dramatically the profits that farmers received. I referred particularly to the fact that the bright outlook for prices in the cattle and wool sectors was immediately being undermined by an average increase in costs of 7.6 per cent in the past year. I also made the point that these increases in costs were far above the levels being experienced by our overseas competitors. When I mentioned input costs I referred particularly to Australian levels of interest rates, the prime rate being in the range 18.5 per cent, the bank overdraft rate being very close to 20 per cent and the second hand machinery rate being 24 per cent from finance companies. I referred particularly to the input costs being driven up further by fringe benefits tax and the fact that farmers have not been allowed a flow-on of the full-- Senator Button —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Any statement claiming misrepresentation should be relevant to the alleged misrepresentation. Senator Crichton-Browne is using this vehicle to-- Senator Crichton-Browne —I am not. Senator Button —I am making a point at the moment. Senator Crichton-Browne is using this vehicle to canvass a wide range of issues which go far beyond the alleged misrepresentation relating to the mistaken use of the word `imports' instead of `inputs'. I think that he should be called to order. Senator Crichton-Browne —May I speak to the same point of order, Mr President? I am seeking to indicate to the Senate the very real difference in what has been reported that I said and what I did say. I am seeking to back up my proposition by the evidence as shown in Hansard. The PRESIDENT —Senator Crichton-Browne sought leave to make a statement, but I ask him to make his remarks as relevant as possible and to conclude as quickly as possible. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr President. There are just two other brief matters which come to mind and to which I will confine my remarks. I made the point that the fact that the Government had extended the write-off period for water conservation from one year to three years had added a further cost of $47m. I referred to the fact that, because of the pricing arrangements for the importing of phosphate, the Australian farmers are paying an additional $25m a year, that, in essence, the problems of Australian farmers relate to input costs as well as export costs and that in no way are import costs relevant to the demise and difficulties of Australian farmers. Consideration resumed. Clause 13 (Application of Royal Commissions Act). Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.12) —Before the debate was interrupted for Question Time, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who was then at the table, was asked whether the Government would accept the amendments put up by the Opposition on the basis of the strong recommendations from the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I would be obliged if we could have an answer now. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.12) —The Government will not accept these amendments, essentially for the reason that a response has been made by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I think that response has already been read into the record; so it is not as though we are being dog in the manger about this. There is a reasoned reaction to the response of the Committee. Under the circumstances, and in particular given the desire of everyone concerned to resolve this issue, to clarify once and for all the status of these areas, and to allow if need be the industry to get on with its job without this possible cloud hanging over its head, it seems desirable not to delay matters-which would, of course, be the necessary implication of any amendment passed at this stage, as it would have to go back to the House of Representatives. For all those reasons, the Government will not accept those amendments. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.13) —I acknowledge that what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has said is correct-that the response to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has been read into the record by the previous Minister at the table, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). However, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, also the Scrutiny of Bills Committee had access to the response of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) and, in the light of that response, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee rejected the Minister's response. It said that the right to refuse to give answers to questions where this may result in a person being required to incriminate himself or herself is one of the most important protections available at common law and it should not be removed lightly. I also draw Senator Evans's attention to the direct comment about the Minister's response, which suggests that the present Bill has been thrown together in a hasty and slipshod fashion with more concern for ensuring that the Commission is able to operate `satisfactorily' than for the consequences of applying, in a blanket fashion, provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 which may be wholly inappropriate to the nature of the Commission's inquiry. The Minister for Resources and Energy, with his legal experience and his well-known concern for civil liberties, should find this clause abhorrent, as I do and we all do on this side. I urge him to get the Government to give further consideration to accepting this amendment, which goes to one of the basic rights and liberties of a citizen in this country, in spite of the fact that in this case those citizens happen mostly to be Tasmanians. Do I take it from the Minister's silence that he does not intend to answer that? Has the Government not come to grips with it? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.14) —There is nothing more to say. The Government has taken on board the response of the Committee. No new point has been raised or drawn to the Government's attention. Accordingly, I shall decline, with as much grace as I can muster in the circumstances, Senator Newman's invitation to refer the matter back to the Government. We have looked at it and made a decision and we want the Bill to proceed on the basis that I have indicated. We do not believe that there are any clauses in this Bill that are destructive of liberty in any of the exotic senses that Senator Newman mentioned. Under those circumstances, there is nothing more to be added to the debate on this clause as far as we are concerned. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.15) —As I have already drawn attention to the Minister's so-called record on civil liberties, he should find it very hard to sleep straight in bed at night if he thinks about his response. It is quite disgraceful that, on the grounds of expediency and expedition, he rides roughshod over the rights of citizens in an area as vital as their legal rights in terms of self-incrimination. I am appalled. How dare he call himself a civil libertarian and give me the answer that he just did. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.15) —Now that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), a former Attorney-General, has returned to the chamber, perhaps he will be able to-- Senator Gareth Evans —I was just filling in for Senator Ryan. I am not running for cover. Senator WATSON —No, I want the Minister here to answer this question. We want to know what are the mechanics of enforcement of the Commission's purported right to compel State witnesses to appear before the Commission. What mechanisms does the Commonwealth intend to use? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.16) —I do not have a detailed answer up my sleeve, but the normal mechanics for enforcement of orders made by bodies such as this pursuant to statutory powers are that, if the order is not responded to by the recipient of it, it is a matter of seeking the appropriate process through the courts. These things are not self-executing; they have to be enforced through the courts and that no doubt would be the course taken. It may well be that if this process were to be applied against a State, there would be some legal argument about the capacity of legislation of this kind to apply to a State. Of course, that is something that the Government has considered and we will meet that challenge should it arise. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.17) —Given the acknowledgment that there could be a legal difficulty, and given that the Minister is steeped in the history of the law, I ask: Can the Minister give us a case in the history of the Federation of a previous attempt by the Commonwealth to force a State government to provide information to a Federal inquiry, as would be required under this legislation? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.18) —I do not want to prolong this conversation, but there is no case of which I am aware in which provisions of the Royal Commissions Act have been applied, or in which they have been attempted to be applied, to the States. I am unable to answer whether there have been any ad hoc inquiries established over the years in respect of which the States have been brought within their ambit. There is a particular reason for doing so in this instance, which has been well articulated in the second reading speech and elsewhere. It is understood. It is an omission from the Royal Commissions Act, no doubt simply because the situation has not arisen before. It is an omission that we are now seeking to correct, for reasons that are well understood and need no further explanation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.18) —That was a question that I asked earlier and that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who was then at the table, was unable to answer. I am delighted that, from his knowledge, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is now at the table, has been able to give us that answer. Before the Minister leaves the table, I really would like him to answer one last question, which is very interesting. Seeing that the Minister has already said that this is a precedent, can the Minister say whether the Government agrees as a matter of principle that royal commissions should have the power to require a witness to incriminate himself? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.19) —The standard mechanism for dealing with this very difficult question, which does of course raise issues of principle, is that an executive inquiry of the status of a royal commission ought to be able to inquire fully and fearlessly and without inhibition or limitation on the matters within its investigative charter and, accordingly, that people ought not to be allowed to refuse questions that are properly relevant to that charter. However, the corollary of that, which as I recall has traditionally been accepted in relation to royal commissions, is that such evidence should not be able to be used in any subsequent criminal or other process against the witness in question. That is the trade-off that has traditionally been adopted in relation to Executive inquiries of that kind that are provided for in the Royal Commissions Act and are involved here. Of course it is anticipated-I hope this is understood-that it is highly unlikely, in the context of the present inquiry, which is about the proper management of forestry resources, that issues of self-incrimination will even remotely arise. So I do not believe, with the utmost respect, that people should get their knickers in a twist about this issue in the context of the Tasmanian inquiry, because it is highly unlikely, as a practical matter, that this would ever come to practical relevance. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.21) —If that is the case, surely there is no argument at all about taking it out. If the ex-Minister is so satisfied that there is no need for it, we do not need it in the legislation. It is as simple as that. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.21) —I was afraid that Hansard may not have caught the response which Senator Evans gave to my last question, and I would like to make sure that it is in the record. Senator Evans answered me by saying: `Easily'. Question put. That the amendments (Senator Collard's) be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Senator Walters —Mr Chairman, the ayes have it. There was only one voice. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I have called that the noes have it. There was more than one voice on the noes side, and they are entitled to a division. Senator Reid —There was only one no. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I called that the noes had it. The ayes disputed that call and they are entitled to a division. Senator Walters —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. In a situation where only one voice says no, surely there is no possibility of that motion not being passed. There was no call for a division because there was only one voice. There was only one Government senator in the chamber and therefore the amendments must be carried. The CHAIRMAN —Let me make the situation quite clear. When the Chair calls the result of a division, it is in the opinion of the Chair which way the call goes. It is not done by the actual number of people present or by the volume of voices. If the call is disputed, the call must be disputed by more than one person. In this case I called that the noes had it. The ayes had more than one voice and they are entitled to a division, which is now being held. Senator Walters —Mr Chairman, as a matter of information, could you tell me whether the Chair is entitled to give a decision when only one voice has been heard? The CHAIRMAN —The answer is yes. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Collard's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G. Carrick, Sir John Short, J. R. Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Haines, J. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Vigor, D. B. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Georges, G. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. Parer, W. R. Elstob, R. C. Lewis, A. W. R. Jones, G. N. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Ray, RobertHill, R. Reynolds, M. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. (Senator Chaney did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that clause 13 stand as printed. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.28) —I would like it to be clearly identified to the people in Australia that the Australian Democrats, including Senator Janine Haines, a member of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, just voted against the very recommendations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee for preserving the civil liberties of our citizens. Let it be clearly understood that when it comes to the crunch Senator Haines will vote for expediency in order to protect trees, but not to protect Australian citizens and their rights. Obviously she does not have any more concern than Senator Evans, the well-known libertarian, for the rights of individual citizens and their protection from self-incrimination. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when these basic rights are trampled on by Senator Evans and Senator Haines, both of whom in other circumstances parade their civil libertarian views. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.29) —I wish to raise some matters regarding clause 13 in relation to the operation of the Royal Commissions Act. Firstly, I seek from the Minister an assurance that, with the exception of those sections of the Royal Commissions Act which are provided for in section 6d (2) about the taking of evidence in private, it is intended under this legislation that all of the hearings of the Commission will be conducted in public. We have already passed clause 10, which relates to sub-section 6d (2) of the Royal Commissions Act in accordance with clause 13, which is now before us. I seek the assurance that except where the matter before the Commission goes to the question of the financial position of any person or relates to the profits or financial position of any person-which is the purport of section 6d (2) of the Royal Commissions Act-all the hearings of the Commission are to be hearings in public. Bearing in mind that clause 13 (4) gives operation to section 6d of the Royal Commissions Act with the exception of sub-section (5), which goes to the derogation of its powers to take evidence in private, I seek the assurance that, other than on the financially sensitive information, it is intended that all of the hearings of the Commission will be public. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.31) —There are limitations on any assurances that the Government can give to the extent that we are establishing an independent commission that will be making these decisions itself. I cannot believe that the policy which the Government would wish the Commission of Inquiry to follow would be otherwise than as Senator Puplick has indicated. The only justification I can foresee, as presently advised, for holding hearings in private would be commercial confidentiality. An inquiry of this nature, where matters of security, criminality or whatever are not involved, is essentially a public inquiry and a matter of public interest. I believe that only considerations of commercial confidentiality would justify private hearings. But essentially, it is a matter for the Commission itself, as I am sure Senator Puplick will appreciate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.32) —Senator Gareth Evans may be aware that there was some discussion on an earlier clause as to the provision of information to the Commission of Inquiry which has been sought by other persons under freedom of information legislation. Therefore, I put to Senator Evans the question: If the Commission of Inquiry were to call for, say, material on a scientific assessment or material which went to the question of correspondence between Federal and State authorities which had previously been denied under a freedom of information request but which was provided to the Commission of Inquiry in order to assist the Commission with an appreciation of scientific data or of matters which were in dispute, would that material provided to the Commission and referred to in public discussions and in public hearings of the Commission then equally, having been made available to the Commission-the Minister gave an assurance that he hopes that the Commission would operate in a public forum-if it is not financially sensitive material, as provided for in 6d (2) of the Royal Commissions Act, also thereby become public information? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.34) —Again I can only say that it is essentially a matter for the Commission itself what it chooses to make public, either in the course of public hearings or in its final report and the associated evidence that is published. The Government is happy to leave that decision making to the Commission. It is obvious that there are quite different criteria that it may be appropriate to apply in the context of a freedom of information application, not least when there are Federal-State sensitivities involved in a particular matter. But those considerations are clearly not immediately relevant to the publication decisions that will be made by the Commission of Inquiry itself. Beyond that I do not think that I can usefully comment. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.45) —Can the Minister then tell me from where the Commission obtains independent authority to hold hearings which may not be public hearings? Clause 10 (4) of the Bill states: Subject to subsection 6d (2) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 in its application in accordance with section 13- which we are now on- hearings before the Commission shall be held in public. Sub-section 6d (2) of the Royal Commissions Act states: If any witness before a Royal Commission requests that his evidence relating to a particular subject be taken in private on the ground that the evidence relates to the profits or financial position of any person, and that the taking of the evidence in public would be unfairly prejudicial to the interests of that person, the Commission may, if it thinks proper, take that evidence in private, and no person who is not expressly authorized by the Commission to be present shall be present during the taking of that evidence. I therefore ask the Minister: What capacity does the Commission have, and where does it derive from, to hold any hearings which are not public hearings other than when the financial position of an individual might be adversely affected? The Minister says that this is a matter within the discretion of the independent Commission. I put it to him that the reading of clause 13 together with the reading of clause 10 (4) takes away from the Commission the capacity to hold any private hearings other than on the question of commercial sensitivity covered in section 6d (2) of the Royal Commissions Act. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.36) —I simply make the point that it is for the Commission itself rather than the Government to determine the application in particular circumstances of the rules that Senator Puplick has read out and which are, I think, a complete and accurate account of the rules that would govern the Commission. It is a matter for the Commission to determine in any particular case whether the kind of claim being made by a witness for a private hearing is such as to come within the ambit of section 6d (2) of the Royal Commissions Act. The other point I quickly make, lest there be any confusion about the question of documentary evidence, is that it is of course within the capacity of a royal commission, and this Commission, to gather evidence by means other than a hearing process. There are many ways in which material may come before the Commission other than through the route of being tendered by a witness at a hearing, public or private. So, lest there be any confusion between the earlier discussion and this discussion about what happens at a public hearing, I make the point that there are plenty of discretions available to the Commission as to what documentary evidence it secures by routes other than a hearing, and plenty of discretions by which the Commission can determine whether or not to publish that evidence as part of its own process. I hope that that has cleared up any further misunderstanding that may have been in some people's minds, if not in Senator Puplick's, about the way this will all work. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.38) —Any claim for a hearing to be in private must be based on the tests of section 6d (2) of the Royal Commissions Act? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.38) —I am not in the business of giving unequivocal legal opinions on the run with legislation I have not written and have no ministerial authority for, but with all those caveats the answer would appear to be yes. Clause agreed to. Clause 14 (Entry and inspection of certain areas). Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.39) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 8, paragraph 14 (c), line 10, leave out ``considers'', insert ``has reasonable grounds for believing''. (4) Page 8, clause 14, at end of clause, add the following new subclause: ``(2) A member or another person shall not enter upon land pursuant to subsection (1) unless the member or other person has taken reasonable steps to notify the occupier of the land and to obtain the consent of the occupier to the entry of the member or other person on that land.''. These amendments also pick up comments in the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on this legislation and the inadequacies contained therein. It states: Paragraph 14 (c) thus confers on the member or authorised person a broad power to enter upon private land based upon nothing more than the personal opinion of the person exercising the power. Of course, we concur quite openly with the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in saying that this goes beyond what would be expected in any normal legislation. In picking that up, we have moved these amendments and, knowing Senator Gareth Evans's record on such things and the civil libertarian attitudes he has expressed on previous occasions, we trust that the Government will accede to them. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.40) —My responses in this area have not seemed to make me very popular in the past with the Opposition. I am glad that some signs of change of heart are evident in the course of this debate. The Government will not accept these amendments, essentially for the reasons set out in the reply of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to Senator Crowley as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The basic point that needs to be made is that not only do these clauses have a tight geographical limitation but also, more importantly, the particular power can be exercised only, as clause 14 says, `For the purposes of performing his or her functions or exercising his or her powers under this Act'. That is not a matter of personal opinion of the person in question purporting to exercise those powers. It is something that is objectively testable in the courts. If someone should feel that the power is being improperly exercised, not for a purpose that is clearly evident or available under the legislation, that is something which is, I repeat, testable. We are not building in a capacity for subjective judgment here. There are objective standards that have to be met and accepted. It is on that basis that the Government believes that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure the non-abuse of these powers without adding the further layers of requirement that Senator Collard indicates and certainly without putting at risk civil liberties in the way that has been suggested by the Opposition. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.41) —I draw the chamber's attention to exactly what the Opposition has been trying to do here. According to clause 14 (c) of the Bill, a member or somebody authorised by the Commission can go on to land anywhere in Tasmania which the member or other person considers may be part of a qualifying area or contain forestry resources. All that the Opposition is asking, on the advice and the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, is that there be inserted in that clause words to suggest that that person who goes on to that land-it can be private land, which is our concern particularly-should have reasonable grounds for believing that it may be part of a qualifying area or contain forestry resources. What can be so objectionable to the Government in including such a small and reasonable amendment? After all, a royal commission has to get a search warrant to go on to property in circumstances such as this. In the case of this Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, any member of the Commission or person authorised by it can go on to the land, without a by-your-leave, just because they `consider'. I do not believe-the Scrutiny of Bills Committee did not believe-that the response of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) was satisfactory. The Committee drew attention to the fact that that person is not required to have reasonable grounds for belief and is not required to notify the owners of the land. The power is too broadly drawn and is considered to trespass unduly on the personal rights and liberties of the citizen. The second amendment that we wish to have the Government accept is a new sub-clause that: A member or another person shall not enter upon land pursuant to sub-section (1) unless the member or other person has taken reasonable steps to notify the occupier of the land and to obtain the consent of the occupier to the entry of the member or other person on that land. What is so unreasonable about that? If we were really being difficult we could probably say: Why should there not be the same requirement as applies to a royal commission which has to get a warrant before a judge before it can go on to private property? In this case at least such a person should have to notify the owner and get consent or take reasonable steps to notify the occupier and to obtain consent. I think the Government's response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and to the amendments put up by the Opposition, which are reasonable and proper and designed to protect the rights of the citizen, are not extreme in any fashion. The response from the Government is totally inadequate, and I urge it to reconsider. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.44) —I take the point about reasonable grounds for believing as being, as a practical matter, an entirely appropriate criterion that should be satisfied. If this Bill were being drafted from the beginning one might be tempted to put something in there to spell it out absolutely beyond doubt. I would strongly argue, nonetheless, that in the absence of those specific words they are to be regarded as implicitly there and would be so construed as being there by any court that was ever called upon to adjudicate this matter. Remember that the entry on to land that may be part of the qualifying area can be done only for the purposes of exercising powers under the Commission. Unless someone reasonably believed that such an area qualified as a potential forestry resource for the purpose of this legislation, wearing my lawyer's hat, I cannot see any grounds on which such an entry could be sustained. One would have to have that element of reasonable belief. Equally, as to the second amendment, it may well be thought that there is some appropriateness about prior notification before barging in on any such area of land, and I am sure this is a practical matter that will occur. The difficulty about the way this amendment is drafted at the moment is that it requires not only prior notification but also consent. Where that consent is refused one would be unable to perform properly the functions of the Commission as are here set out. There is nothing especially reasonable about the drafting of the second amendment. It goes much too far. There are some things which one can reasonably accept, and I have indicated them. I have no objection in principle to amendment (3), and the Government would have no objection in principle to the first part of amendment (4). We would argue that they are implicit requirements anyway. I repeat what I said earlier, that if we were to make any amendment at all now, which is not necessary, that would have the result of delaying the implementation and operation of the Bill. From the Government's point of view, if not the point of view of the Tasmanian senators opposite, that is not something that we want to do. I hope that will be regarded as a reasoned response, to which I do not need to add later, although two honourable senators opposite are leaping to their feet. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.47) —I do not think the Minister is quite aware of the enthusiasm with which this Bill will be embraced by the conservationists in Tasmania. I think he is completely unaware that they will use anything at all that will enable them to get on to any land. Therefore, the Bill is saying that anyone-- Senator Gareth Evans —Authorised in writing. Senator WALTERS —Yes. Anyone will be able to go on land anywhere in Tasmania, not even within the forestry area-even on the east coast-if he so thinks that perhaps it could be some qualifying area. As the Minister has already admitted, the drafting of the Bill was hurried; if the Minister had had any input he would have done it differently. For heaven's sake, do not put through rubbishy legislation. If the Government does not like our amendments, it could put through an amendment that it thinks would be appropriate to overcome this problem. I can assure it that we would join it in that, and there would be no problem in going through with it. Senator Coleman —There is no problem. Senator WALTERS —There is a problem that the Minister has already acknowledged exists because he says it is implicit-not stated-that it is in someone's mind. Senator Gareth Evans —If it is implicit it is not a problem. Senator WALTERS —That is not the way to introduce legislation-to assume that something is in someone's mind. This is written legislation that the Minister has already said is faulty. I plead with the Minister to move a Government amendment, and we will agree with it. There will be no problem with us. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.49) —I also want to respond to the Minister's comments. I am not sure whether I am misinterpreting the intention of what he was saying, but, although he was not prepared to accept our amendments for expediency reasons and because, as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, he is trying to get this Bill through the place today, am I right in thinking that the Minister reads clause 14 (c) and would expect the Commission to operate under that sub-clause as though the words `has reasonable grounds for believing' is what `considers' means? Senator Gareth Evans —In short, yes. Senator NEWMAN —I thank the Minister. Am I also to understand that the Government would expect the Commission, when entering private land under clause 14 (c), to extend the courtesy, wherever possible, of at least informing the owner of the private land and preferably obtain consent? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.50) —Certainly the former. One would also hope that consent would normally be forthcoming without the need to rely on the formal statutory powers. If it is not, then the powers would need to be exercised. But certainly I agree with Senator Newman. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.50) —I assume that the only reason the Minister will not put these amendments into the Bill is that he wants to get the Bill through today. Senator Gareth Evans —Because they are not necessary. They are implicit. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Collard's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. CArcher, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil. G. Carrick, Sir John Short, J. R. Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Haines, JBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J. Childs. B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. West, S. M. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Parer, W. R. Elstob, R. C. Lewis, A. W. R. Jones, G. N. Guilfoyle, M. G. C. Ray, R. F. Hill, R. Reynolds, M. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. (Senator Chaney did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 15 agreed to. Clause 16 (Unlawful acts). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.58) —I refer to a question I asked on 26 March during previous debate in the Committee stage of this measure. I attempted to obtain from the Government the precise article of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage upon which the Government relies for its powers to enact this legislation. Senator Gietzelt responded to my request. He referred to Article 34 (a) of the Convention, which really does not tell us anything. Bearing in mind that in the Tasmanian dams case the High Court of Australia indicated that the acceptance by Australia of an obligation under an international convention suffices to establish the power of the Commonwealth to make a law to fulfil the obligation, I am asking the Government to identify the article in the Convention which imposes an obligation on the Government to enact this legislation, particularly clause 16. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.00) —I agree with Senator Harradine that article 34 (a) of the World Heritage Convention is not particularly helpful in addressing this issue. That is the Federal clause, essentially, and it explains the interrelationship between the Commonwealth and the State. It does not go back to the basic obligation on which the legislation must primarily be based. That obligation is to be found in Articles 3, 4 and 5 (d) of the World Heritage Convention which place an obligation on parties to the Convention to identify natural heritage and cultural heritage as defined in the Convention. If we analyse the travaux preparatoires, the documents preparatory to the Convention, they show that the identification was clearly understood by all the participating parties as including the process of inquiry and report. This is the purpose of the inquiry being set up under this Bill. The chain of argument and authority clearly is there and it goes back to Articles 3, 4 and 5 (d), not Article 34 (a). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.01) —I thought that that may have been the response. We have one Minister saying one thing and another Minister saying another. I thought the Minister would refer to Articles 3, 4 and 5 (d). I have examined those Articles and can find nothing in them which would provide the power to the Parliament to do what clause 16 enables the Minister to do. Clause 16 imposes an obligation on people in Tasmania, for example, not to carry out any excavation works within the `protected area' except with the consent in writing of the Minister. This obligation is imposed on persons whether they act personally or through a servant or agent. Also prohibited is any other act prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph. Presumably, `prescribed' means prescribed in the usual way by the Minister through regulations. The point that I am making is that in clause 16 there is established that area known as `the protected area'. In the definitions the `protected area' means the Lemonthyme area and the Southern Forests area, other than any part of either area that is an excluded area. The extraordinary part about this is that as yet these areas, in the view of the Commonwealth Government, are not part of our natural heritage. The Government is attempting to undertake what it sees as an obligation to identify areas of natural heritage. It set up a commission to do this but this area, in the sense that it is used in the international convention, is not part of our natural heritage. Therefore, the Government does not have the obligation and therefore does not have the power to protect this area. I really do not know how the Government can rely on the International Convention to impose what it is seeking to impose in clause 16, the clause this Committee is now discussing. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.05) —Clause 16, I believe, runs contrary to an undertaking which was given by a Minister in this place. I will quote from Hansard of 18 February 1986. Senator Walsh said: The Government does not propose to limit logging in the area beyond the limits already proposed in the Tasmanian Forestry Commission's 1983 management plan. Clause 16 runs counter and contrary to that undertaking given in this place in a considered response by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in answer to a question which was placed on notice. In relation to whether it had a wilderness value he said: I am advised this is not specifically a registered value for this area but it is a wilderness buffer or remote zone. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.06) —I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether he believes that the Government really means that an owner of private property must take reasonable steps to prevent the doing within part of that protected area of any act that is unlawful under sub-clause (1)? I can understand that the Government could say to the owner of that property: `Don't you or your family do anything' but how is that owner meant to cope with any trespassers on his property? Is he to be held responsible for any unlawful acts by trespassers on his property? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.07) —Regarding Senator Walters question, the only obligation is to take reasonable steps and one would have thought that there is a minimum of things that it is reasonable for property owners to do. Senator Walters —Such as? Senator GARETH EVANS —Such as putting a fence around the property with a sign saying `Keep out'. I do not think that armed guards are needed around the perimeters. I do not want to engage in speculation as to a variety of circumstances. Only reasonable steps need to be taken to avoid the possibility of someone saying: `I may be the owner but it is not me who cut them down. It was Joe Blow down the road', when, in fact, there has been tacit acknowledgment and willingness to accept Joe Blow doing the job. That is the sort of reason that that part of the legislation is there. Again, I do not want to contribute too much speculation to essentially hypothetical cases. As to Senator Watson's contribution, Senator Walsh's reply was made in the context of affairs that have been rather superseded by the course of events. Senator Archer —What do you mean by that? Not a thing has changed. Senator GARETH EVANS —What has changed has been the need, in the absence of co-operation unfortunately, to embark upon an inquiry using formal powers to explore these things. But again I do not find it helpful to try to canvass what obviously are matters of controversy between us. I simply make the point that there is no question of a misleading answer in Senator Walsh's response; it was simply a reflection of the Government's position at the time. As to Senator Harradine's remarks, there is no more useful argument that we can have. It is just a difference of view as to what is the proper scope and obligation to identify under the Convention. We could argue about that between ourselves, no doubt, for some time but it would not be profitable to do so. Senator Harradine has put his position on the record and I have put mine. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(12.09) —I have a question for the Minister concerning the interpretation of clause 16 (1) and the various paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) that follow. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that that clause states what is unlawful for a person to do during the interim period. Paragraph (a) says that it is unlawful: . . . for the purposes of, or in the course of carrying out, forestry operations . . . to do a number of things. The clause lists some more things in (b), (c) and (d). Am I to understand from this that, if a person kills, cuts down or damages a tree, or constructs or establishes a road or track; or carries out any excavation work or does any other act, provided it is not in the carrying out of forestry operations, it would be perfectly acceptable? In other words, will this legislation allow a person to cut down trees, make roads, carry out excavation work, et cetera, in starting up a mining operation or a tourist chalet? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.11) —I do not want to undermine in any way the forensic triumph that Senator Newman has bestowed upon us, but yes, the legislation would appear to mean what she says it means, and what was evident on its face. Clause agreed to. Clause 17 (Enforcement). Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.12) —I move: (5) Page 9, subclause 17 (3), lines 15 to 22, leave out the subclause. Basically, the amendment would omit sub-clause (3), which confers on the High Court and the Federal Court an expanded power to grant injunctions in circumstances where this would not normally be possible. Such power was not considered necessary for the enforcement of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.12) —Again, there is a difference of view as to what is necessary for the proper enforcement of this legislation, and legislation of this kind, and as to whether or not there should be a capacity to seek an injunction or an interim injunction. I am advised that there are innumerable precedents for this kind of clause in such legislation. I do not have them to hand. Perhaps they can be pursued at some other stage, if people want that to be done. There is nothing particularly dramatic or startling about this. I think it represents a difference of approach on the part of the Government and the Opposition. Beyond that, I can reply no further. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(12.13) —I am concerned that that should be the Minister's response, because I feel that it is not an ordinary power of injunction that is being given here. I think that the court has far too wide a power. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that this power to grant an injunction is based on whether or not it appears to the court that the person intends to do again, or continue to do, any kind of an act, whether or not the person has previously done an act of that kind and whether or not there is an imminent danger of damage to the protected area if the person does an act of that kind. That is an exceptionally wide power to grant injunctions. I would have thought that the Minister, if he were drafting the legislation, would find it a totally unacceptable ambit of power for the court. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.14) —One can argue about this, but where the matter in issue is the restraint of an act which, if it does occur, completely undermines the whole point of what it is that one is trying to protect, it is appropriate-I understand that there are plenty of precedents for it-for the cause to be pretty robust. When one looks carefully at the way the provision is drafted, one sees that it is not quite as wide as Senator Newman suggests. It is just to cover those situations-- Senator Walters —It looks it to us. Senator GARETH EVANS —Again, given the time, I do not want to get into a detailed legal discussion about it, but there may be circumstances where the appearance of intention is lacking but where their might, nonetheless, be some reason to suppose that the intention cannot be excluded. There might be circumstances where there is a perceived danger of damage to the protected area but not an imminent danger. There may be circumstances where there has been no precedent for that behaviour by the person in question, and that is the point of (3) (b). A lot depends on whether or not there are precedents for this. I am assured that there are. It seems to me that, given the policy objectives of this clause, it is not an unreasonable or overbroad clause. Again, I suspect that that is something on which we will not reach agreement. Under the circumstances, I suggest that we put it to the test. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(12.15) —Does the Government not have the opportunity to go to the court and ask for an injunction by the normal operation of the law of this land? Is there any need to put such a clause into the Bill, thereby widening the powers? Why do we need an extraordinarily wide power when such a right already exists under the law of the land? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.15) —It codifies the ground rules to be applied in this case and makes it easier and quicker for the law to be applied. As Senator Newman may know-she is a lawyer, is she not?-it is a bit tricky, sometimes, to get an injunction quickly. One runs into many arguments and gaps between interims and further injunctions. Given the policy objectives of the legislation, with which the Opposition disagrees-- Senator Walters —No justice. Just easier and quicker. Senator GARETH EVANS —It will be the law of the land-not with any assistance from Senator Walters. But if it is the law of the land-- Senator Newman —Regardless of the rights of citizens. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, it is not regardless of the rights of citizens. Beyond that, our opinions are destined to differ. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.16) —I do not want to prolong our consideration of this clause, but it is an example of the very thing that I mentioned previously in that, in my view, there are no grounds founded in the external affairs power of the Constitution which would enable the Government to enforce what is contained in clause 16 by reference to any supposed obligations it might have under the Constitution by reason of the fact that it is asserting that there is a protected area which has not been delineated as part of our natural heritage. It follows, therefore, that the enforcement and injunctive provisions contained in clause 17 are seriously open to challenge. I do not want to prolong this discussion. There is a difference of interpretation one way or the other. The matter might have to be determined somewhere else and not here. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.17) —I do not want to prolong this discussion either but, to supplement the point I made earlier, I have now been advised of some of the precedents for this type of enforcement clause. I think it would be helpful to mention them. Similar provision was included in the Trade Practices Amendment Act (No. 2) 1977. More recent examples with very similar wording to 17 (3) in particular are found in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act 1984, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Act and the Petroleum Retailing Marketing Franchise Amendment Act, both of 1984, and the Futures Industry Act 1986, most of which, as I recall it, were not challenged by the Opposition-certainly not on this type of clause. Senator Newman —Before my time. Senator GARETH EVANS —Thank God they were, with the utmost respect. Senator Harradine —What Senator Evans has said does not go to my point. Senator GARETH EVANS —No. We are destined to differ on that, I am afraid. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 18 (Consents given under section 16). Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.19) —I submit that clause 18 of the Bill has the effect of overriding section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. I submit that the Government should have amendments before the Committee today, or certainly in the future, because amendments are required. An explanation is required from the Minister of the meaning of clause 18, because it states that the Minister is to take into account only the Government's obligations under the World Heritage Convention when considering whether or not to consent to forest operations under clause 16. There is definitely a conflict there. Would the clause have the effect of overriding the Minister's obligations under section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975? If not, we may be placed in such a position that, where the inquiry determines that an area is not of world heritage value but is likely to be included in the Register of the National Estate, the Minister would not be able to take a decision to allow it to be logged without satisfying himself that there were no prudent or feasible alternatives. Can the Minister respond? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.20) —Is Senator Watson saying that he wants this legislation to override the earlier legislation? Is he concerned that it may not? Senator Watson —I contend that it does override the legislation. If it does not, it will be necessary for you to introduce amendments either today or at a subsequent time. Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course this legislation overrides the earlier legislation to the extent of there being an inconsistency because it is a later piece of legislation. The first thing one learns at law school-as Senator Newman would know but the honourable senator can be entirely forgiven for omitting to appreciate this-is that a later Act will override an earlier one. So in that sense a conflict will not arise. It is another argument as to whether there is an interconnection at all between those two clauses. But if there is to be a relevant inconsistency the problem to which Senator Watson averted will not arise. Senator Watson —So in future we will have to read not only that world heritage Act but also the Lemonthyme Act. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Lemonthyme legislation has application only to the particular geography, area and circumstances required. Senator Walters —Or any other area in Tasmania. Senator GARETH EVANS —Not any other area in Tasmania; any other area of Tasmania that is relevant for the purposes of the inquiry. Clause agreed to. Clause 19 (Compensation). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.21) —I move: Page 10, subclause 19 (2), lines 3 to 7, leave out the subclause, insert the following new subclause: ``(2) Where: (a) a person refrains from doing an act, being an act of a kind made unlawful by subsection 16 (1), by reason only that: (i) the act is made unlawful by that sub- section; or (ii) an injunction or interim injunction is granted under section 17 restraining the person from doing the act; and (b) because the person refrains from doing the act, another person suffers loss or damage, whether directly or indirectly; the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation to that other person in respect of the loss or damage.''. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister has already said that compensation will be available to people who suffer loss or damage. As I have already quoted from Hansard, Senator Richardson said: There is no cutting off of any possibility of compensation for anyone in Tasmania who considers himself or herself to be affected by this Bill. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that no jobs will be lost. Consequently, I ask the Minister: Is it not reasonable that in this instance he accept the amendment moved? Senator COATES(Tasmania)(12.23) —I have had this argument with Senator Walters before; it ought not to be necessary to repeat it. It is not for me to speak on behalf of Senator Richardson, but if Senator Walters reads the previous sentence of Senator Richardson's speech the whole context of what he said becomes quite clear. The sentence before that which Senator Walters quoted is on page 1239 of Hansard of 24 March and reads: Where a person not covered by the compensation provisions in the Bill considers that he or she has suffered loss or damage as a result of the legislation, the Government furthermore will consider compensation for that person as a matter of policy. So one has to say that this Government has looked at every possible angle. Senator Richardson then stated: There is no cutting off of any possibility of compensation for anyone in Tasmania who considers himself or herself to be affected by this Bill. That is, the possibility still remains, if people put up a good enough case, for the Government to consider it and make ex gratia payments as has been explained earlier. There is no inconsistency between that and what has been said. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.25) —As a ministerial courtesy to Senator Walters, I just indicate that her amendment is not acceptable to the Government. We have made it clear that the legislation, on its face, should apply only to those who are directly affected by the operation of these clauses. The legislation provides for compensation to those who are directly restrained. We have announced-I repeat Senator Coates's statement-a commitment to consider compensation as a matter of policy for other persons who have a good case, based on losses arising from the operation of the legislation. At this stage we do not want to open the floodgates to claims of indirect compensation-and give it a firm statutory base-because of the responsibility we obviously have to the taxpayers of this nation not to encourage what might be long, drawn out claims which might ultimately prove to have no foundation. Moreover, the underlying consideration is that the Government does not believe that any of this course of action and restraint, pursuant to the inquiry, will cause loss or damage to anyone at all. That is what the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) endeavoured to say last night in perhaps too shorthand a fashion. However, to the extent that direct loss is caused, the Bill covers it; to the extent that indirect loss can credibly be established, the Government will consider what might be done in relation to that. I do not think we can be fairer, more reasonable, more comprehensive in our response, and under those circumstances I hope Senator Walters will appreciate that this seems to be another clause on which we are just destined to differ. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.26) —I find the Minister's statement totally inadequate for a matter such as this. To say that the Government will consider something after the event is not adequate where it is a matter of dispossessing people of their livelihoods. There is no alternative for people who are working in that bush today. If it were the Government's intention to pull the pin on these people by Monday, Tuesday or the week after, what would they do? To say that they are not directly affected or that any of the smart phrases the Minister has used are applicable here is nonsense and he knows it is. The people who work in this area, work in this area, and that is the whole question. If Senator Richardson is not empowered to speak on this matter when he is empowered to speak on everything else from election days upwards and downwards, why did he make the comment that everybody who suffered a loss would be protected? He said that there is no cutting off of any possibility of compensation. Senator Coates —The possibility. Senator Newman —Any possibility. Senator ARCHER —Any possibility. The people who will be suffering are not just the people who will be taking the logs. People are getting logs by arrangement and they are not even listed on any particular forestry agreements. All sorts of people down the line will be very severe losers if this ridiculous nonsense goes ahead. At least we deserve to have the Minister take some cognisance of people. It is all very well for the Minister to say that we have to look after the taxpayer. Damn the taxpayer if it is a matter of letting people go broke, if the Government is driving them down this ridiculous road that it is on! Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.27) —Obviously the Minister does not have a clue of what is happening in Tasmania. We have loggers; we have people who have mortgages on big logging trucks who, under this legislation, will not be compensated. As Senator Archer has said, sawmills down the line at the moment get logs from the mill and log in the area. Those arrangements were made ages ago and the Minister is now saying that only if a person is affected directly by this legislation will he be allowed compensation. If the Government is not prepared to pass the amendment I can only assume that those few people employing people in the forest areas will be those granted compensation. Senator Watson —The big losers. Senator WALTERS —The big losers will be the subcontractors and the mills down the line that are relying on logs from the people collecting the timber. If the Minister is not prepared to pass this amendment, it is very obvious that the Government's intention will be in this area, particularly as the previous Minister indicated that the inquiry will take only 12 months and therefore the Government is not thinking that it will have to pay any compensation at all. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(12.30) —I also support very strongly the views expressed by my colleagues from Tasmania. I still do not think the enormity of what this Government is doing is realised here in Canberra. It is putting people out of work by an Act of Parliament, and there is no getting around it by saying it is simply for a year. The long term effects of this legislation down the line are quite piteous for some of the people in our State. There seems to be no understanding of that here. I cannot understand how Canberra can be so divorced from the realities of the work place. As another example of the effects of this legislation, has the Government thought about what it will do with Tasrail? Every year Tasrail reports are tabled in the Parliament. We find that 40 per cent of the freight carried on Tasrail comes from logging. The forestry industries provide 40 per cent of the freight on Tasmanian railways. I am not concerned just about Tasrail; what about all the people who work for it, who get the logs on and off at each end? Senator Coates —Are you trying to suggest that the whole forest industry is affected? Senator NEWMAN —Of course it is to some extent, and if Senator Coates does not know that it is a clear example of how badly he has been representing his State. It is a matter of terrible concern to us as senators representing our State that the Government is continuing to display such a terrible lack of understanding of the jobs involved in this decision. Senator Coates —Don't exaggerate. Senator NEWMAN —Let the people of Tasmania know that Senator Coates does not think too much about the jobs of Tasmanians. It is important to have that on the record. Senator Townley —What did the Minister say-900 jobs? Senator NEWMAN —I would like to know what the Minister will do about Tasrail, because the Government has put up legislation to have all sorts of gambling games and things on Australian National in order to keep that organisation as viable as possible, but on the other hand it is taking away a major part of the revenue of Tasrail, a component of AN. The Government is stupid as well as lacking in understanding, and I have to suspect that it is even worse than that-it is being downright malevolent. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.32) —Objectively this amendment should attract the support not only of every senator from the State of Tasmania but also of members of the Government from other States who are in support of this legislation. This amendment seeks simply to say that, if the Government imposes a prohibition in a particular area and as a result of that imposition a person suffers, either directly or indirectly loss or damage, that person will be compensated. The Government is trying to get through Parliament legislation that enables the Minister to make certain decisions. Surely it is our responsibility on behalf of the people in our State, and indeed it is the responsibility of the Government, to ensure that any of the Government's decisions taken in this area should enable compensation to be paid if those decisions impose loss or damage. The impression given in the media is that the Government is really only putting a stay on it so it can have an investigation and that anybody who is affected will be compensated. As has been said, the problems will relate not just to the logging area but to the mills that rely on certain types of logs. They will be the ones affected down the line, and by and large they are fairly small operators. The Government is really saying: `Oh well, we will have a look now at the ones directly affected'. By and large, they are fairly substantial. Of course it is accepted that the contractors who will be affected severely are certainly not large, but what the Government is saying is that the smaller mills down the line will have to cop the damage if they are affected because they cannot get the logs. The Government is either saying that or is saying to these people: `Take us on trust. We will decide if, how and when you will get your compensation'. It is saying to us here in this Parliament that we should trust it. I do not think it is a question of trust. I might think Senator Evans is a personable sort of chap, but I do disagree with him on a number of issues. We are not talking about whether we like a person or whether we do not; we are talking about legislation and the rights and responsibilities of people. The Government says that if we go along with this idea there might be a logjam of complaints. There will be a logjam in any event; all that this amendment really does is ensure that the smaller mills down the line who cannot get the logs, which will be one of the main groups affected, have the opportunity, as do others who are directly affected, of taking their complaints to an independent arbitrator. I believe that they should not be required, as this legislation requires them, to buy a pig in a poke. The amendment proposed by Senator Walters should attract support because it proposes to put into legislation a measure based on the long-standing principle of certainty before the law. People affected by the law ought to be certain as to how they can get redress or how the law will operate. The people who will be affected by this law are certainly not sure how it will affect them and whether or not they will get compensation. I put it to the chamber that a number of these people, being small operators, could have their very livelihoods affected. They are running close to the bone at present. I believe it is only fair, even for those people who support this legislation, to support the amendment put forward by Senator Walters. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(12.39) —I am particularly worried about the contractors who have to pay a certain amount every month, a quite sizable amount sometimes, for the contract, purchase or hire of their rigs. I do not know how those people will be able to get quick determination of the compensation they receive, if in fact they ever get any, I would like the Minister to seek advice on that. How will these people who will definitely be affected be able to continue their payments, say, next month if this legislation is passed in the near future? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.40) —I think I have given as much of a response as I can. The Government has said that it will consider those who claim to have suffered damage indirectly as a consequence of this. I have indicated that we do not believe anyone is going to suffer any damage. I do not want to spell all that out again. Senator Archer —You will be represented at the bankruptcy hearings, in other words? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think that will be necessary, Senator. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Walters's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, B. F. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E. Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Short, J. R. Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Haines, J. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Vigor, D. B. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Georges, G. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Parer, W. R. Elstob, R. C. Lewis, A. W. R. Jones, G. N. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Ray, RobertHill, R. Reynolds, M. Messner, A. J. Tate, M. C. Alston, R. K. R. Powell, J. F. (Senator Chaney did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.46) —I will not be calling for a division on the third reading. All Opposition senators who have spoken during the debate on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, particularly those from Tasmania, which the legislation affects directly, have fought hard. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, the ramifications for this intervention go beyond State borders. We have already seen intervention by this Government in the legitimate affairs of the States-that is, land use decisions. It was for this reason that Opposition senators from all States took part in the second reading debate. As I said, the Tasmanian senators fought particularly hard during the Committee stage because of the direct and immediate implications that the legislation will have for a great industry in their State. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(12.47) —I rise briefly to applaud the Government's stand on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. I hope that this indicates a continuing interest in saving Australia's environment. I appreciate the Government bringing on this Bill. The Australian Democrats were pleased to support it at all stages. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.48) —I remind the Government that this legislation is yet another example of the improper use of the external affairs power to interfere in an area which is most appropriately dealt with by a State. It should not be forgotten that not only is the State Government of Tasmania opposed to the steps that are being taken by the Federal Government but also the official State Opposition in Tasmania is opposed to what the Federal Government is doing in this area. I believe that any examination of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the interpretations of the High Court of Australia in respect of the external affairs power will show that this is an unwarranted recourse to the external affairs power. I believe that the outcome would certainly be very interesting if this legislation were tested. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, requesting a change in the membership of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Black be discharged from attendance on the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for the period 21 April to 18 May 1987 inclusive, and that Senator Aulich, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, be appointed a member of the Committee for that period. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, requesting a change in the membership of Estimates Committee F. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Walters be discharged from attendance on Estimates Committee F on 6 April 1987 and that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, be appointed a member of the Committee for that day. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate at its rising, adjourn till 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 April 1987, or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Sessional Order of 22 February relating to the adjournment of the Senate. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.52) —I want to raise briefly on the adjournment a matter which arises out of a statement which was made by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, on 30 March concerning the discharge of water from the Ranger uranium mine. I do so because of the response that Senator Evans gave today to a question which Senator Kilgariff asked him about the situation and the decision that was made. As Senator Evans acknowledged in his reply today, following that joint statement, I have also issued a statement outside this place in which I have been, to put it mildly, critical of the Ministers and their reasoning which, in my opinion, amounts to a virtual rejection of the scientific report which was in fact commissioned by them and received by them in December last year. However, in the light of the findings and decision of the Ministers, and presumably of the Government, in relation to this matter, and in view of the extent to which the scientific report's own recommendations have been virtually rejected by the Government, Senator Kilgariff today wanted to know what further scientific advice the Ministers had got on which to base their decision. My recollection is that today, as usual from Senator Evans, Senator Kilgariff was simply given a long rigmarole denying that the Government had rejected this advice but without in fact answering Senator Kilgariff's specific question as to what further scientific advice the Government received. It is quite clear, of course, from the statement itself that the Government's own reasoning in coming to a decision was not based upon scientific evidence but upon what the Ministers call `social considerations'. We know clearly that in recent months the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been trying to curry favour with the extreme environmental lobbies in this country, or the greenie vote. He has been called by others-and it is a good description of him-a born again greenie. But that, of course, is a stance that he had been taking with an early election in mind. So this particular decision about the release of the water from Ranger uranium mine was made a couple of days before the Prime Minister finally decided that he would not win an election if he called it as he was then intending to do. So he abandoned the plans to have the early election which he had been contemplating quite clearly in recent weeks. There may, then, be some sympathy for the Ministers concerned in that they were obliged to make a completely unscientific decision, contrary to the advice that they had received from their own technical working group and their own Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. They have had to dress up the decision to try to give it some sort of scientific respectability whereas, of course, it was not made for scientific or social reasons; it was made for purely naked political reasons. It was because of the actual timing that they were called upon to make this decision, in the atmosphere, as I have said, of an imminent election that the Prime Minister was contemplating. The Ministers' actual decision in relation to the release of surplus water on the Ranger uranium mine is as follows: They will refuse permission for the release of any water from the mine this year. Bearing in mind that this mine has now been in operation since 1981, and that water has been accumulating since the mine has been operating, over six wet seasons now, this is becoming a very serious problem. There is a prohibition on the release of any of this accumulated water on the mine site. Although there are retention ponds for it, they are filling up. It is only because the winters in the region have been comparatively dry over recent years that this problem is not at a critical point. But, again, the Ministers have decided to refuse permission for the release of any water. Secondly, the Ministers are requiring Ranger to proceed immediately to deepen, by the end of this year-that is, before the next wet season-the existing retention pond. That will, of course, be an added expense for the mine, in addition to other added expenses being imposed on it to maintain the Office of the Supervising Scientist, which is the subject of legislation before the Senate at the moment. But, even if this pond is deepened, the technical scientific report presided over by the Supervising Scientist indicates that there will have to be a release of some water from this mine site over an average of one in 10 years. So, as the mine has already been there for six years, the time is becoming imminent. Even with the deepening of the pond, there will have to be some release of water. That scientific report makes it quite clear that the release of this water poses no threat to the environment; yet the Ministers have not even accepted that modified option that the technical working group gave them, namely, some further delay, through deepening the pond, in having to face up to the decision itself. So the Government has managed to fob off yet again having to make a decision. It hopes, I suppose, that it has fobbed off the decision for as many years as it will be around. But the third aspect or arm of the decision-and this is that one that has been the subject of criticism by me in my statement and by Senator Kilgariff in his question-is to instruct the Supervising Scientist to develop practicable and environmentally acceptable options aimed at ensuring that Ranger water management is fully consistent with the protection of the environment. That has all been done in the report. That is what this long 38 or 40-page report is all about-working out plans which will prevent environmental damage to the area. The group has shown the Government how that can be done and, indeed, it believes water can be released as often as two years in five, because of the great flow of water in the wet season and because the water itself is not highly contaminated. It will be diluted into the ordinary water system and therefore will not cause any problems. The scientists themselves have said that there could be social reasons and concerns which may justify a less frequent discharge of water, and that is why they came up with the idea of deepening the existing retention pond so that there would only be a release perhaps once in 10 years. Senator Crichton-Browne —That was only to placate the ideologues. I mean, it is not necessary. Senator DURACK —Of course, it was to placate people in case the Prime Minister decided to call an election. I suppose that he wants to keep placating them until the election is held at the end of the year. It is not dressed up social reasons, but naked political reasons, that are influencing the Prime Minister and his Ministers. The absurdity of the third arm of the decision is that the Ministers are asking the very same person, namely, the Supervising Scientist, the Chairman of the Technical Working Group, who has already given them all the answers, to develop further options aimed at protecting the environment. It is an absurd decision; it is unscientific; it is totally irrational. These two Ministers are setting themselves up as witch doctors of Kakadu. They are trying to stop the elements. Senator Evans gained some notoriety for his prowess at sending aircraft around the country. Now he is apparently trying to develop some prowess, not in a rainmaking operation, but in some sort of deseeding operation. It is a totally unscientific and irrational attitude. He is saying: `We have accepted the scientific report. We will adopt its option of the deepening of the pond and the release of water in perhaps one in 10 years'. But that is not what the Ministers have done. They have instructed the scientists to come up with some other option which will relieve them of the need of making this very difficult decision, in the light of their attempt to curry favour with the greenie vote-the extreme greenie vote, in this case. Anybody who has read the report of the technical working group will realise what a sensible, rational and totally scientific report it is. Indeed, the scientists in their report have already taken into account the so-called social reasons. Of course, as I said, Senator Evans is now trying to say that that is not the right interpretation, that I have been misrepresenting him and that Senator Kilgariff, presumably, has misunderstood him. The fact is that the first sentence of the joint statement by Senator Evans and Mr Cohen reads: The Government is totally committed to ensuring the complete environmental protection of the Kakadu National Park and guaranteeing that it is not damaged in any way by the Ranger uranium mining operation. The demand that they are making is absolutist. The scientists have shown that there will be no effective damage to the environment by the release of water in the way in which they have suggested. Of course, Professor Ovington and his national parks people-the extreme greenies, and so on-are requiring this absolutist guarantee that there will not be any damage of any description, no matter how minor and inconsequential. The Government is now saying that it accepts that. That is, of course, why it is fobbing off the decision and telling the Supervising Scientist to develop further options, when it knows that the Supervising Scientist has already developed all the options in this report of the technical working group. The Ministers really let the cat out of the bag in this part of their statement: The Government has now decided upon a plan of action for the . . . problem of water management . . . which should make unnecessary the need to consider release of water of any kind from the mine's restricted release zone in the foreseeable future. The foreseeable future for them is the next election. Of course, they want to avoid having to make that decision before their new-found born-again greenie role is put to the test. Finally, they say: . . . the Government has decided that another major effort should be made to develop further practicable options aimed at reducing to a still greater degree the need for water release ever to be considered. Those quotations from the statement make it perfectly clear that Minister Gareth Evans and Minister Barry Cohen have rejected the modified scientific report which they commissioned. They have asked the Supervising Scientist to go away and come up with something which will mean they can avoid making the hard decisions that they may ever be called upon to make. Despite their pretentions to witch doctoring, they cannot control the flow of water in the long run in this area. They cannot control whether the season is very wet, not very wet, or whatever. They cannot control the elements. They have been very lucky for six years. They want to prolong their luck in this totally unscientific way. The Office of the Supervising Scientist was set up to protect the environment of Kakadu and to give governments advice as to how it should be done. It is costing the taxpayers of the country $4.5m a year. The Supervising Scientist has about 70 or 80 people working for him. Many of them are in Sydney, but presumably they are able to do the work there as well as on the ground at Kakadu. The Supervising Scientist has been working in the area for years. He had the number of staff which I have cited. He has presented this report. He has suggested a modification of the totally scientific conclusion. The Government is not satisfied with that and it has asked him to come up with other options. This is one of the most absurd, irrational and totally unscientific decisions that I have ever seen any government make. The Ministers, Senator Evans and Mr Cohen, stand condemned for their failure to act upon a report given by the Government's own watchdog and adviser to protect the environment of this region. Its adviser has shown how it can be done. The Government has not had the courage to act on that scientific advice, even though it was modified to take social factors into account. It has caved in most abjectly once again to the extreme environmentalists, simply because the Prime Minister was considering calling an early election and did not want to take any hard decision on the eve of an election which, of course, will not now be called. If the Ministers had any courage or any standing as Ministers of the Crown, they would reverse this decision and act on the advice that they have already received. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(1.08) —I dedicate this contribution to the adjournment debate as a tribute to Ann Milroy, a friend of many years, who died this week. A memorial service this evening will pay tribute to her many talents and contributions to Australia. Ann Milroy was a Barossa district councillor, a fighter against injustice, an activist, an idealist, and a person who gave her love unselfishly to her family, her neighbours and all who live in the Barossa Valley. She is archetypal of a large number of local councillors. Local councils, I believe, are one of the most relevant parts of government. They look after our most basic needs-our homes, our health, and our environment, both cultural and physical. They are the most effective decision makers about day to day matters in this country. They are often innovative and responsible for local needs. Citizens-initiated referenda have been introduced in local government in North Sydney to give citizens a direct say in any matter about which they feel strongly. Proportional representation is being adopted in more and more local councils to give a voice in decision making to as many different groups in the community as possible. Councillors are unpaid in general and they serve the community out of dedication and duty. Ann achieved out of unselfish love for her family, friends and neighbours the fulfilment of her life as a woman, an artist and a political activist. She was one of those from many regions of the world who have contributed so greatly to the rich and varied life of the Barossa Valley. It is this responsibility for local needs which makes it imperative that local government should have full constitutional recognition as an arm of government. We need recognition of the role of councils in the Australian Constitution and protection in each of the Constitution Acts of the States. This need is demonstrated every time a State government intervenes unfairly in the activities of councils. The most recent example is the extraordinary sacking of the Sydney City Council by the New South Wales Unsworth Government last week. It is a measure of the Unsworth Government's jackboot tendencies that retrospectively the ordinary processes of law are being overturned to avoid any appeal or inquiry into the legality of that sacking. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a history of the events from an article on 27 March in the Sydney Morning Herald. Leave granted. The article read as follows- State Government sacks Sydney Council despite legal threat COUNTDOWN TO THE DISMISSAL 1984 April: New City Council elected. May: First rift with State Government over State Library work. July: Lord Mayor says files have disappeared. 1985 May: ALP aldermen urge drastic cut in council numbers, Municipal Employees' Union calls for sacking. September: ALP/Liberal aldermen join in coalition. Lord Mayor's allowance rises by $12,000. Aldermen warned by Government over ``bad behaviour''. Report condemns planning department. October: Two ALP aldermen expelled, move to Independents. November: Council-Government clashes over monorail. 1986 January: Clashes over erosion of planning powers. February: Alderman spits in chamber, another calls husband to punch Lord Mayor. Talk of sacking. April: Independents try to censure Lord Mayor. New Zealand trip attacked. Talk of sacking. July: Lord Mayor's South Africa trip condemned. September: Brereton calls to sack council over Darling Harbour. 1987 February: Crosio announces review. Lord Mayor's Washington trip. March: Election deferred. ALP mounts case against council. COMMISSION TAKES OVER THE CITY By Tracey Aubin, Civic Reporter Sydney City Council was dismissed from office by the State Government yesterday, and its operations and functions taken under the administration of Sir Eric Neal, managing director of Boral. Special legislation will be introduced next week to appoint a three-person commission to run the city, and the Government will establish an inquiry into the restructuring of the council to give Sydney a new style of local government. The Premier told a news conference yesterday afternoon that the 27 aldermen and Lord Mayor had ceased to hold office from 2.15 pm, when the Governor of NSW, Sir James Rowland, had signed an Executive Council minute. From that point, Sir Eric, who retires from Boral in June, was in charge of the council's operations and 2,500 employees. Sir Eric will become chairman of the commission next week. The former Lord Mayor of Sydney, Sir Nicholas Shehadie, and the former NSW Treasury secretary, Mr Norman Oakes, will join him as commissioners. The commission, with representatives of resident groups and trade unions, will run all council operations for at least a year, while Mr Alfred Goran, QC, a former District Court judge, conducts an inquiry into an ``appropriate system of government'' for Sydney. Mr Unsworth said: ``The Government believes that the city of Sydney perhaps warrants a different form of government . . . ``We believe [the dismissal] was essential in the interests of Sydney, in the interests of NSW, and in the interest of Australia [to] eliminate the dissension that has occurred in recent times in the government of our city, eliminate the delay that has been occasioned to development of our city particularly, and the delay to important tourist infrastructure such as additional hotels and other major developments associated with the growth of our city central business district. ``The frequent instances of appalling behaviour during council meetings were bad enough, but to see those childish antics carried through in the management of the city's affairs, as well as the interference in the day-to-day management of the council, has made it ineffective and the situation unbearable.'' The sacked Lord Mayor, Mr Doug Sutherland, pledged yesterday to fight the dismissal. ``This is an assault on democracy and a fraud on the electorate. I will be taking swift action to right the wrong through the courts,'' he said. But Mr Unsworth said there was no legal flaw in the sacking under Section 86 of the Local Government Act, and that the Government had advice from a Crown Solicitor which contradicted Mr Sutherland's legal advice that the move denied natural justice. The decision to sack the council was delayed while an emergency State Cabinet meeting was called to discuss Mr Sutherland's threats of legal action. It was not until 3.30 pm that Mr Unsworth made the formal announcement. The dismissal was called a ``desperate and despicable act'' by six sacked Liberal aldermen. The Federal Minister for Local Government, Mr Uren, said the move had ``shades of 1975'', when the Whitlam Government was sacked. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Greiner, said the only reason the council was removed was that the Government knew it was not going to win the local government elections in September. But the Municipal Employees' Union came out in support of the dismissal. The union's general secretary, Mr Joe Cahill, said the Government had done a great service to Sydney ratepayers and council employees, and blamed ``unruly'' Independents for the council's problems. Mrs Clover Moore, one of the sacked Independent aldermen, called on the Minister for Local Government, Mrs Crosio, to resign for ``caving in to political pressure from within the ALP''. Another Independent, Mr Frank Sartor, said ``the big-shots the Government has appointed will have no feeling for the citizens of Sydney''. A sacked ALP alderman, Mr Stan Ashmore-Smith, said much of the blame rested with Mr Sutherland, who had failed to provide leadership to the council, and had instead embroiled it in disputes concerning his travel arrangements. The secretary of the NSW Local Government and Shires Association, Mr Bill Henningham, said he was appalled. ``The arbitrary dismissal of the council is a serious affront to democratic local government, and in particular to the disenfranchised citizens of the city,'' he said. Mr Unsworth said there was ``a distinct difference between the needs of the central business district and the needs of the residents in the suburbs of the inner-city''. The decision would ensure that developments such as the Anthony Horderns site and five hotels could get underway without council obstruction, he said. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Hard cases seldom make good laws. The New South Wales Government not only has sacked the Sydney City Council illegally, but also has sought to stop any redress by cynically using its numbers to force through a law retrospectively ratifying its actions. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard sub-clause 6 of the extraordinary City of Sydney Bill 1987 which passed the New South Wales Parliament last night at 7.10 p.m. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 6. (1) By force of this Act, and with effect on and from 26 March 1987- (a) the Lord Mayor and all other members of the Council of the City of Sydney are removed from office; (b) Sir Eric Neal is appointed as Administrator of the City of Sydney; (c) the said Administrator shall have the powers, duties and liabilities of the Council of the City of Sydney; and (d) Sir Eric Neal is appointed a councillor of the Sydney County Council, as if duly elected at an extraordinary election to be the councillor elected to represent the First Constituency, and the person holding office immediately before 26 March 1987 as councillor elected to represent the First Constituency ceases to hold that office. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the proclamation published in Gazette No. 59 of 26 March 1987 on page 1555 in relation to the Council of the City of Sydney is, to the extent (if any) of any invalidity, validated with effect on and from 26 March 1987. (3) No proceedings, whether for an order in the nature of prohibition, celtiorari or mandamus or for a declaration or injunction or for any other relief, shall lie in connection with- (a) the validity, making or publication of the proclamation; (b) any recommendation, advice or decision for the making or publication of the proclamation; (c) the removal of the Lord Mayor and all other members of the Council of the City of Sydney from office; (d) the appointment of Sir Eric Neal as Administrator of the City of Sydney; (e) the conferring and imposing of the powers, duties and liabilities of the Council of the City of Sydney on Sir Eric Neal as Administrator; (f) the appointment or election of Sir Eric Neal as the councillor of the Sydney County Council to represent the First Constituency, or the vacation of office by the person holding office immediately before 26 March 1987 as councillor elected to represent the First Constituency; or (g) any associated matters. (4) This section has effect notwithstanding that any such proceedings were commenced before the date of assent to this Act, and has effect notwithstanding any decision in any such proceedings. (5) Any such proceedings pending in any court immediately before the date of assent to this Act are terminated. (6) Except in so far as the parties to any such proceedings (being proceedings pending immediately before the date of assent to this Act) otherwise agree, the costs of or incidental to the proceedings incurred by a party to the proceedings shall be borne by the party, and shall not be the subject of any contrary order of any court. (7) It is declared that there was no obligation to afford any members or employees of the Council of the City of Sydney or any other persons an opportunity to be heard, or to give reasons, in connection with any of the matters referred to in subsection (3) (a)-(g). (8) Anything may be done under the Principal Act or any other Act or law (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) as if paragraphs (a)-(d) of subsection (1) were embodied in a proclamation duly made under section 86 of the Principal Act and published in the Gazette on 26 March 1987. Senator VIGOR —This alarming clause seeks to validate retrospectively the sacking of the Council. It goes even further than this. All proceedings in the courts in relation to the sackings are terminated. I believe that this is scandalous. The Unsworth Government is not content with preventing future action by the aggrieved councillors. It stops dead the actions that are currently in progress. The Federal Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) said in relation to this matter: Local councils should only be sacked by the people who elect them. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard his Press release of 13 March on this subject. Leave granted. The document read as follows- I am deeply concerned about reports in today's Sydney Morning Herald that the NSW Government is being pressured by its party machine to sack the Sydney City Council. Local councils should only be sacked by the people who elect them. Where any Government is not doing a proper job it can be removed by its electors. There are legal procedures available for dealing with any individual misconduct. Outside interference into democratic processes by political mafias, whether Labor, Liberal or National is intolerable. The national platform of the ALP acknowledges the democratic rights of elected councils to due process in any conflict with State or Federal Government. The Federal Government supports the constitutional recognition of Local Government. Labor Governments around Australia have been working to improve relations with Local Government. I was a Minister in the Federal Government struck down by an undemocratic process. The dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975 should never be repeated in the Federal arena. Nor should there be a repetition of the dismissal of a State Government as occurred in the 1930's in the NSW arena. We should cease seeking precedents in the Local Government arena. The party machine in NSW is out of step in rejecting Local Government democracy. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The Secretary of the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, Mr Bill Henningham, was appalled. He said: The arbitrary dismissal of the Council is a serious affront to democratic local government, and in particular to the disenfranchised citizens of the city. Even Mrs Crosio, the New South Wales Minister for Local Government, in February-some time before the sacking-objected to the high-handed, undemocratic action her Government has now forced her to adopt. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard reports of their remarks in the Sydney Morning Herald. The articles are short. Leave granted. The articles read as follows- CALL FOR JUSTICE FOR SACKED COUNCIL Michael Grealy-Local Government Ten weeks after Warringah Shire Council was sacked by the Wran Government, it is hard to find supporters of the move and all its repercussions. The results of the Local Government Department's investigations into the alleged irregularities in the council's development approval process have not been made public. None of the 12 sacked councillors has been charged with receiving bribes. No date has been set for a new council election. Opponents of two major developments at Mona Vale and Palm Beach have had no response from the Government to their requests to revoke the consent for the two projects; they say that if the council's handling of these projects concerned the Government so much that it needed to sack the council, then the projects themselves should be stopped and development consent considered again. The Palm Beach project is still going up. The shire's Government-appointed administrator has sought advice from the department on whether the second stage of the Mona Vale project should be approved. The Mona Vale developer claims the delays are costing him $30,000 a week. The sacked councillors say they have been denied justice and suggest that they may have been sacked because they would have rejected a huge commercial-industrial development at Terrey Hills. All we have is a press release announcing the sacking from the former Minister for Local Government, Mr Stewart, which is not specific about the council's alleged irregularities, and his subsequent revelation that police are investigating a claim that an unnamed Warringah councillor was getting $20,000 a year in bribes for favours done in the shire. The Warringah dismissal and the State Government's sack-and-run role was the subject of a Northern Suburbs Assembly of Councils meeting at the weekend. Outlining the principles at stake, the secretary of the Local Government Association, Mr Bill Henningham, said the power of arbitrary dismissal vested in the State Government offered no protection to elected members. The NSW Local Government Act deprived elected members of the basic rights of traditional British justice - to be aware of accusations against them, to have a chance to answer them and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. ``It enables Star Chamber procedures as we have seen in the Warringah case - a trial by Cabinet,'' Mr Henningham said. Dismissal of the whole council inevitably damaged innocent reputations and might actually be a cloak for one corrupt person to hide behind, he said. Mr Henningham called for legislation to make a public inquiry a mandatory first step before dismissal. ``Unless this happens, grave dangers are posed to democracy, and one sphere of the Australian system of government will have to continue to operate in a state of intolerable vulnerability,'' he said. ``Individuals [on council] will continue to be hampered in doing their jobs by an absence of the security to which any citizen is entitled. ``Councils' autonomy will continue to be threatened, through being constantly subject to the ebb and flow of political events largely beyond their control. ``An individual or individuals, if necessary, rather than an elected body, should be brought to justice. ``No sensible person would suggest the dismissal of a State or national government on the basis of an unproven allegation of misbehaviour by one minister - or even 10 ministers, for that matter. ``And at least when State or Federal Governments have been dismissed by vice-regal processes, they have always been able to put their case to the people within a short time. ``Under the Act at present, there exists no guarantee for fresh elections - so the appointment of an administrator can be indefinite. The Act allows, in effect, indefinite rule by decree,'' he said. No-one can say how long Warringah will be without an elected council. When the then-Minister, Mr Kevin Stewart, sacked Newcastle City Council in October 1984, he promised elections within a year. There are still no signs of an election. Local government leaders do not have a reputation for being stout advocates of councils' rights when they enter State politics. It will be interesting to see if the new Minister for Local Government, Mrs Crosio, a former Mayor of Fairfield, becomes a defender or destroyer of local government. Her first serious test may be her response to the LGA's call for justice in the sacking of councils. CROSIO WANTS INQUIRIES BEFORE COUNCIL SACKINGS by Mark Coultan The State Government is likely to change the Local Government Act to make it impossible for a council to be sacked unless an inquiry is first held to determine such action. The move, foreshadowed yesterday by the Minister for Local Government, Mrs Crosio, is in response to a spirited campaign by the Local Government Association, and marks a new, cordial phase in the relationship between State and local government. At the moment the State Government has the power to sack a council without explanation. Mrs Crosio will present a working paper to Cabinet next week which will examine the possibility of suspending a council, rather than sacking it, while an inquiry is held. The most likely possibility is that the administrator, or an inspector of the Department of Local Government, would hold an inquiry into the council while it is suspended. The seniority of the person appointed would depend on the circumstances of the suspension of the council. In circumstances such as the dismissal of Warringah Shire Council, where there were suggestions of bribery, the Government could look for a retired judge to hold the inquiry. Such an inquiry is likely to have the powers of a commission of inquiry, and will have similar powers to that which already exist in the Act under Section 649, used for public inquiries when there is a dispute between councils. After a meeting between Mrs Crosio, the Premier, Mr Wran, and the Local Government Association, it was agreed that a working party would be set up to formulate the changes to the Act. Mrs Crosio made it clear yesterday that she was worried about the general slur which attaches itself to innocent aldermen on a sacked council. She also foreshadowed that the State Government was considering changing the State constitution to recognise local government. PAGE 17: Crosio promises improved relations. Senator VIGOR —The infamous travesty of justice, the City of Sydney Bill 1987, even sets out to ruin financially any councillor rash enough to challenge the sacking. The Bill says that costs incurred to this time are to be borne by each party to the proceedings unless the parties otherwise agree. The courts are precluded from making any order in relation to these matters. Another extraordinary part of the Bill, sub-clause 7, says: It is declared that there was no obligation to afford any members or employees of the Council of the City of Sydney or any other persons an opportunity to be heard, or to give reasons, in connection with any of the matters referred to in Subsection (3) (a)-(g). Those matters deal with the sacking of the Council, and the appointment of an administrator. Once again there is retrospectivity. What is behind this sacking? The Unsworth Government is obviously afraid of people seeking to uphold their rights in the courts. It has every reason to be afraid. Elections for Warringah Shire Council were held last month. A police report found that allegations of bribery and corruption against the previous council which was sacked by the same New South Wales Government, were completely groundless. The Ombudsman, Mr George Masterman, has been critical of the failure of the Department of Local Government to discharge its statutory obligations. Copies of the findings of its inquiry into the Council's affairs were not forwarded to the Council until nine months after its dismissal. Former councillors were not even given any opportunity to respond to the allegations or the comments of the Department's inspectors. In addition, the former councillors only found out about their sacking through the media. It seems certain the Unsworth Government is afraid to allow the normal processes of justice to operate for fear of a major caning in the courts or by the Ombudsman. This is a very serious matter when there is supposedly a commitment in Australia to democracy. In fact, the Australian Labor Party Government in New South Wales has shown its arrogance towards the Sydney City Council on a number of occasions. South Sydney was brought in to the Council area to make the council safe for the right wing Labor faction. When the electors rejected this in 1984 by opting for independents in many areas a campaign of destabilisation began. We even had the infamous Liberal-Labor coalition formed to remove the cleansing influence of the independents. The State Government continued to take away more and more responsibilities from the Council as it pushed environmental disasters such as the monorail. The ordinary processes of law were suspended so that Ministers could supervise monuments to their own megalomania. When the time for reckoning was due, in the form of periodic elections, the Government suddenly got cold feet about giving the voters a say. It is a disgraceful set of affairs in keeping with the worst excesses in any period in Australian history. A letter to the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, 31 March said that the whole episode was: . . . an evident denial of natural justice, a desperate, despicable and ham-fisted act designed, on Mr Unsworth's admission, to clear the way for major developments approved by the State Government. It seems there is a parallel between Mr Brereton's bullying tactics over the proposed Harbour tunnel, and Mr Unsworth's action over local government. It may be that Mr Unsworth's action can be seen as throwing down the gauntlet to any local government body, and by implication the citizens of any given area who have the temerity to question or oppose his Government's plans over developments such as Darling Harbour, the monorail, the tunnel and high-rise hotels. Senator Tate —Who wrote the letter? Senator VIGOR —The letter was written by Mr Ross Smith of Arthur Street, North Sydney. The Victorian Cain Government was defeated on its council merger proposal by an intensive local government lobby. Is the New South Wales Government once again attempting to force council mergers by the back door, as suggested in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 March? I seek leave to incorporate that article in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- 'SUPER COUNCIL' MERGER FEARED By Michael Laurence The next step for the State Government after sacking Sydney City Council could be the amalgamation of eight central councils into a super council serving 900,000 people, with an annual budget of $348.5 million and a staff of 5,600, according to the Local Government association. The association fears that such a council could comprise the City Council, North Sydney, Botany, Leichhardt, Waverley, Randwick, Woollahra and Marrickville. `A leaked Cabinet minute shows that not only the City Council may be under attack-there is a real possibility of councils of adjoining environs being dismissed and merged in a local government body so that their people would be ruled by Government appointees,' said the association's president, Alderman Barry O'Keefe, a member of Mosman Municipal Council. The eight councils listed by Mr O'Keefe range in size from Sydney City Council with an annual budget of $148 million and staff of 2,450, to Botany Council with an annual budget of $18.5 million and a staff of 250. The last merger of councils in NSW was in 1982 when Sydney City Council was amalgamated with South Sydney Council. In 1981, the State Government had merged 40 country councils into 17 larger ones. Reaction to Mr O'Keefe's warning about a possible super council was varied. The Mayor of North Sydney, Alderman Ted Mack, said he would not be surprised if North Sydney Council was dismissed and joined with other councils. `The Government has virtually ruined the city and like all vandals it wants to extend the destruction,' he said. The Mayor of Waverley, Alderman Carolyn Markham, said: `God help us all if that merger took place. Such a big council would be absolutely unworkable.' The Mayor of Woollahra, Alderman Charles Widdy, said: `My personal view is that we would not sit down and take it without a fight. The purpose of local government is to be local.' He said that with such a large council, it would be difficult for ratepayers to get to know aldermen who understood their area. The Mayor of Botany, Alderman Ron Hoenig, said: `The association has done a disservice by scaremongering. I believe it is devised as an attack on the Government for its political persuasion. `Botany Council is considering withdrawing from the association. Mr O'Keefe's statement is the final straw.' The Mayor of Marrickville, Alderman Barry Jones, said: `I am quite confident that the merger won't happen. I believe the Government has looked at the problems of Sydney Council and that's it.' Senator VIGOR —We certainly do need better protection for local government right around the country. Only in Western Australia must a date be set for new elections when a council is sacked. An Act of Parliament is needed in Victoria to dismiss any council. In South Australia, a thorough inquiry is necessary before any such sacking can take place. Councillors must be given an opportunity to respond to the findings. In Tasmania either an adverse Auditor-General's report or a poll of electors is needed to see a council dismissed, unless it cannot maintain a quorum. In most States, dismissal can be for 12 months and more. It is generally quite an unsatisfactory state of affairs. As a resident within the Sydney City Council area wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald: At least when Sir John Kerr was in the business of sacking governments he allowed democratic processes to follow. I do not believe that Sir John Kerr's action can be justified. Even less can the actions of the Unsworth Government be justified in producing retrospective legislation in this case. It is time for a fair go for local government in New South Wales and elsewhere in the nation. I wish briefly, in conclusion, to come nearer to this place. The Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly was dismissed by the Federal Government only last June. At the time we were promised early elections for an Australian Capital Territory council, notionally described as the start of `self-government' for the Australian Capital Territory, since the House of Assembly had had no power to regulate local affairs, except through Federal Parliament taking up its resolutions in the form of Australian Capital Territory ordinances. The Federal Government has also sinned by default. In the Australian Capital Territory there is no longer any representative oversight of local administration. The lack of democratic representation in the Australian Capital Territory sorely troubled the Human Rights Commission in the last months of its existence last year. Its Chairman, Dame Roma Mitchell, in fact wrote to Mr Scholes, the Federal Minister for Territories, urging the Government not to take measures which are potentially in conflict with our international human rights obligations. The Government, however, went right ahead with its plans to appoint an advisory council, after bringing an end to the former elected House of Assembly. The Government was not prepared to let the people of the Australian Capital Territory have an effective say in who managed their affairs if the Labor Party's chance of having control were not guaranteed. The so-called compromise electoral system the Government sought for the Australian Capital Territory was thoroughly rejected by the 1984 Craig task force, which held public hearings into all aspects of future Australian Capital Territory administration. The Government sought to give Labor 60 per cent or more of the representation on only 40 per cent of the vote. While this is somewhat better than the original attempt to grab approximately 85 per cent of the representation on 40 per cent of the vote, it is still a perversion of democracy, in my view. It is something that can always occur in single-member electorate districts. Most of us recall the large margin of seats that the Fraser Government had in 1977, a perfect illustration of this. In fact, the Liberals alone had a majority in the House of Representatives, but had less than 40 per cent of first preference votes. This is the sort of distortion and misrepresentation that comes so naturally in single member electorate systems. We ought not to be surprised by this Labor Government trying to achieve in the Australian Capital Territory just what the Bjelke-Petersen Government has managed to achieve in Queensland with a minority vote. It will be interesting to see just how the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission tackles the failure to fulfil our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I believe that we owe it to the memory of people such as Ann Milroy to allow local government the democratic protection of the Constitution, and to provide proper inquiry procedures, at least as open and as thorough as those which have been put in in South Australia with the help of the Democrats in the Upper House. This will protect democracy and its processes against political bully boys and wimpish politicians, the paid servants of centralist bureaucrats and the hand-servants of influential developers, big business and possibly even of organised crime. I believe that we must consider very quickly having a referendum to give constitutional recognition to local government and to protect it against such abuses. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(1.24) —There have been two speakers on the adjournment. Senator Durack raised a question relating to the discharge of certain waters into the Ranger uranium water management system. All I can say in relation to that has already been said at Question Time by Senator Gareth Evans in answer to the question posed to him by Senator Kilgariff. The fact is that, as has been noted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in a report which it tabled late last year, there are many more matters than the scientific and technical to be considered when government comes to make a decision on this type of matter. There are a whole range of social and other issues which need to be addressed. They have been addressed by the Government and the decision reflects that overall balance which governments are elected to take note of and to come to decisions on, decisions which they then have to defend out in the electorate. In fact, as is well known, not only has that decision been taken, but that is not the end of the matter. The Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region is to develop a practicable and environmentally acceptable option. I am sure that when that report comes forward, the Government will once again make the necessary balanced decision, a decision which it has made in this case. Senator Vigor raised matters concerning local government. He has dedicated his remarks to the memory of one Ann Milroy, who recently died in South Australia-a councillor of note. I am sure the Senate joins Senator Vigor in the tribute he paid to her. On the other hand, the matter that he raised about the dismissal of the City of Sydney Council by the New South Wales Government is a matter for which neither I nor any other Federal Minister has portfolio responsibility. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that local governments stand in a peculiar constitutional position. Whilst they obviously derive moral authority from the fact that they are elected by the communities in their area to whom they are accountable and whom they represent, their powers are devolved on them from the State governments and legislatures. There is a balance there which, on occasion, permits a local government to be dismissed by the State government, even though this brings to an end what would otherwise be a term of local government to which certain councillors and aldermen have been elected by people in their communities. A balance has to be struck in each case and to characterise this instance as one of arbitrary dismissal and sacking is to fly in the face of the evidence of some of the disruption and difficulties that had been experienced in the workings of the Sydney City Council over the last few years. On the other hand, it has to be said that, according to the national platform of the Australian Labor Party, due process when this sort of situation develops ought to be part of the relations between the local and State parliament and government. Insofar as that may have been totally taken into account, it is a matter which is properly noted. As far as the legislation is concerned, Senator Vigor said that it was retrospective. We have to be very careful in that regard. As I understand it, legislation was required because the overall legislation which permits the dismissal of the local government authority provided for only one administrator to be put in charge of that local council area. It was desired by the New South Wales Government to put three persons in charge as administrators or commissioners of the City of Sydney area. Legislation was required for that. The other provisions, as I understand it, are merely declaratory of the present law and do not seek to make legal what would otherwise be illegal under the present local government Act. In its substantive, effective, powerful provisions I do not believe that we are confronted with retrospective legislation but, as I said, I do not take any great responsibility because it is not within my portfolio area. In regard to the Australian Capital Territory, we have had many debates in this chamber on that subject. I think the general public understands that Senator Vigor has been the great destroyer of democracy in the Australian Capital Territory, having sabotaged at least two attempts that I know of by this Government to come to some arrangement whereby the wishes of the people of the Territory might be made known. I do not think that there is anything to be gained by my raking over those coals. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the chamber, Estimates Committee B will meet in Committee rooms 1 and 2, and Estimates Committee C will meet in Committee room No. 6. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 1.29 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 April 1987, unless previously called together in accordance with the resolution passed earlier this day. The following paper was tabled: Excise Act-Declaration in respect of rebate and amount of rebate in respect of Bass Strait Oil, dated 11 March 1987.