Tuesday, 16 February 1988 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SENATE Hansard 1988 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT (SECOND PERIOD) The Senate, on 18 December 1987, adjourned to 16 February 1988 unless the President fixed an earlier day of meeting. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate passed on 18 December 1987, the Senate met on Tuesday, 16 February 1988, at 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that on 29 January 1988 I received a letter from Senator the Hon. Susan Maree Ryan resigning her place as a senator for the Australian Capital Territory. In accordance with the provisions of section 44 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, I have notified His Excellency the Governor-General that a vacancy has happened in the representation of the Australian Capital Territory. The PRESIDENT —I table an instrument by His Excellency the Governor-General convening a Joint Sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives for the purpose of choosing a person to hold the place in the Senate formerly held by the Hon. Susan Maree Ryan. Place and Time of Meeting Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That, pursuant to the Instrument by His Excellency the Governor-General, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council and pursuant to subsection 44 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, convening a Joint Sitting of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives at Parliament House, Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory, at 8 o'clock in the evening on 16 February 1988, the place of the Joint Sitting within Parliament House be the Senate Chamber. (2) That the foregoing Resolution be communicated by Message to the House of Representatives for its concurrence. Rules for Conduct of Business Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That the following rules be adopted for the conduct of a Joint Sitting of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to choose a Senator pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918: Matter to be considered at Joint Sitting 1. The purpose of a Joint Sitting being to choose a person to hold the vacant place in the Senate pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, no other shall be considered at a Joint Sitting. General rule for conduct of business 2. In any matter of procedure not provided for in the following rules, the Standing Orders of the Senate, in force for the time being, shall be followed as far as they can be applied. Chairman of Joint Sitting 3. The President of the Senate or, in the absence of the President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall be the Chairman of a Joint Sitting. Clerks of Joint Sitting 4. The Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall act as Joint Clerks of a Joint Sitting and either of them may exercise a function expressed to be exercisable by the Clerk. Minutes of proceedings 5. Proceedings of a Joint Sitting shall be recorded by the Joint Clerks, and such records shall constitute the minutes of proceedings of a Joint Sitting and shall be signed by the Joint Clerks. Time limit on speeches 6. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may speak for more than five minutes on any proposal or question before a Joint Sitting. Objection to rulings of Chair 7. If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Chairman, such objection must be taken at once, and a motion of dissent, to be submitted in writing, moved, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the Joint Sitting, and debate thereon shall proceed forthwith. Entitlement to vote 8. On any question arising in a Joint Sitting each Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, including the Chairman, shall have one vote. Voting 9. Questions arising in a Joint Sitting shall be decided by a simple majority of the Senators and Members of the House of Representatives present and voting and, if the votes are equal, the question shall be resolved in the negative. Choice of a person to hold vacant place in the Senate 10. (a) A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, addressing the Chair, shall propose a person to hold the vacant place in the Senate and such proposal shall be seconded. When any person is so proposed the proposer shall state that that person is willing to hold the vacant place if chosen. (b) In proposing a person to hold the vacant place in the Senate, the proposer shall declare that that person is eligible to be chosen for the Senate and that the nomination is in accordance with the provisions of subsection 44 (3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. (c) If only one person is proposed and seconded, the Chairman shall put the question that that person shall be the person to hold the place of the Senator for the Australian Capital Territory whose place has become vacant. (d) If the question is passed, the Chairman shall declare that the person has been chosen to hold the place of the Senator for the Australian Capital Territory whose place has become vacant. (e) If more than one person is proposed and seconded, the person to hold the vacant place shall be chosen by ballot. Before the ballot proceeds the bells shall be rung for three minutes. (f) Before giving directions to proceed with the ballot, the Chairman shall ask if any Senator or Member of the House of Representatives desires to propose any other person to hold the vacant place, and no other person shall be proposed after the ballot is commenced. (g) Each Senator and Member of the House of Representatives present shall be provided with a ballot-paper certified by one of the Joint Clerks, and shall vote by writing thereon the name of one of the persons duly proposed, and shall place the ballot-paper in the ballot-box. (h) The Chairman shall appoint a person from each House to be a scrutineer. The scrutineers, with the Joint Clerks, shall ascertain the number of votes for each of the persons duly proposed, and the scrutineers shall report the result to the Chairman. (i) No informal vote shall be taken into account. (j) If on the first ballot no person receives an absolute majority of the votes cast, the name of the person who receives the fewest votes at the first ballot shall be excluded, and a second ballot shall be taken; but if at the first ballot the names of only two persons are submitted and the number of votes for each such person is equal, the scrutineers shall by drawing lots determine which of such persons shall be chosen to hold the vacant place, and the person whose name shall be first drawn shall be deemed to have been duly chosen. (k) Until one of the persons proposed obtains an absolute majority of the votes cast, or (as the case may be) is chosen by lot to hold the vacant place, successive ballots shall be taken, and at each such ballot the name of the person who receives the fewest votes at the preceding ballot shall be excluded. (l) If on any ballot it is necessary to decide which of two or more persons is to be excluded from a subsequent ballot because of the number of votes for such persons being equal, a special ballot shall be taken at which the names of only those persons shall be submitted, and the name of the person having the fewest votes at such special ballot shall be excluded; but if on any special ballot it shall be necessary to decide which of two or more persons is to be excluded from a subsequent ballot because of the number of votes for such persons being equal, the scrutineers shall by drawing lots determine which of such persons shall be excluded, and the name of the person last drawn shall be excluded. (m) If at any ballot, other than the first ballot or a special ballot, the names of only two persons are submitted and the number of votes for such persons is equal, the scrutineers shall by drawing lots determine which of those persons shall be chosen to hold the vacant place, and the person whose name is first drawn shall be deemed to have been duly chosen. (n) As soon as any person obtains an absolute majority of the votes cast, or (as the case may be) is chosen by lot to hold the vacant place, the Chairman shall declare that such person has been chosen to hold the place of the Senator for the Australian Capital Territory whose place has become vacant. (o) The ballot-papers shall be retained by the Clerk of the Senate, who shall be the custodian thereof. Conclusion of Joint Sitting 11. Upon the declaration of the person chosen to fill the vacant place in the Senate, the Chairman shall announce that the President of the Senate will certify the choice to His Excellency the Governor-General, and shall then declare the Joint Sitting closed. Message Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That a message be sent to the House of Representatives informing the House of the rules adopted by the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(2.03) —by leave-I move: That at 6.30 p.m. today the sitting of the Senate be suspended till the ringing of the bells after the conclusion of the Joint Sitting. I indicate that it is expected that the Senate will resume at approximately 8.45 p.m. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I advise honourable senators that benches have been removed from the chamber for the Joint Sitting at 8 o'clock this evening. The benches will be back in place before we commence sitting tomorrow. I also advise honourable senators that, following consultation with party leaders and Independent senators, I have granted permission to the television networks represented in the Parliamentary Press Gallery to film and take photographs of the proceedings of the Joint Sitting and swearing-in ceremony. Because of the historical value associated with these proceedings, I believe such a film will serve as a valuable record of proceedings in this chamber and contribute to the archives of the Parliament. The PRESIDENT —I present to the Senate a letter I have received from the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs relating to Senator Wood's application for citizenship. I also present a copy of a letter I have received from Senator Wood. Copies of the letters will be distributed to all honourable senators. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(2.04) —by leave-I move: That, pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Senate refers to the Court of Disputed Returns the following questions- (a) whether there is a vacancy in the representation of New South Wales in the Senate for the place for which Senator Wood was returned; (b) if so, whether such vacancy may be filled by the further counting or recounting of ballot papers cast for candidates for election for senators for New South Wales at the election; (c) alternatively, whether in the circumstances there is a casual vacancy for one senator for the State of New South Wales within the meaning of section 15 of the Constitution. Mr President, the letters that you have tabled raise some fairly complex issues for the Senate to resolve. I must first of all correct some impressions given in the media last night, especially by Senator Chaney, as to the position of the Australian Labor Party in this matter. I would like to quote what he said, if I may be allowed that indulgence. Senator Chaney said: Well this Government has made quite an art of passing legislation about our electoral system. They passed legislation relating to the disclosure of campaign donations and we've seen as this recent fiasco in New South Wales over that. They've passed a law which says-and I happen to agree with this law-that to be elected to the Commonwealth Parliament you should be an Australian citizen. I have to inform Senator Chaney that this Government did not pass that law; the Government of which he was a Minister passed that law. It passed that law in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act in 1981. It also put a rider on that that it did not want it to be proclaimed until Australia Day 1984. So this rather cheap and opportunistic method Senator Chaney adopted last night to try to link the Australian Labor Party with this or that abuse of the electoral law will come back to haunt him. I might say that I do not think anyone would disagree with that amendment. The Opposition and the Government would acknowledge that there was a distinction to be drawn, and it was drawn in that Act, between an ability to be on the roll and an ability to stand as a candidate for Parliament: for at that time it was thought by the past Government that it would be unfair to disenfranchise many electors who were on the roll and take them off the roll. So, if you like, that Government grandfathered it in and up to a certain point-Australia Day 1984-if one was a British subject with six months residence in Australia one was entitled to be on the electoral roll for as long as one liked. Subsequent to that date, such a person had to take out Australian citizenship to be on the roll. However, with regard to candidature for this Parliament, it was specified in that Act that one had to be an Australian citizen. In my view there can be no question of Senator Wood being in deliberate error on this matter. Two similar cases came to the attention of the Australian Electoral Commission in 1987-one relating to citizenship and the other to an office of profit under the Crown. In the case of the lack of Australian citizenship, the Australian Government Solicitor was consulted on the question of whether the candidate had committed any offence. The advice received by the Commission was that the candidate had not knowingly made an incorrect declaration, that a prosecution would therefore fail and that the Commonwealth Electoral Act did not specify an offence of making an incorrect declaration on the nomination form. At a later point I will return to make some suggestions of how lack of citizenship problems can be avoided in future. I think the first port of call in this particular case has to be the Constitution. In section 47 it is stated: Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises. Whilst the Senate may have some residual powers in this matter, the Parliament has made other provisions, especially in the Electoral Act. These come under two distinct powers emanating from the Electoral Act. Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act refers to the Court of Disputed Returns. For dealing with challenges to elections, division 1 covers that contingency. Section 355, however, amongst other prerequisites for a challenge to an election, allows for a challenge within 40 days after the return of the writ. Clearly in this case, division 1 of part XXII of the Electoral Act is exhausted and cannot now apply. One crucial section of division 1, however, should be alluded to and that is section 353 (1). I quote: The validity of any election or return may be disputed by petition addressed to the Court of Disputed Returns and not otherwise. There is a very strong implication in that section of the Act that no part of an election, other than by way of a petition to the Court of Disputed Returns, can be challenged. On the question of qualifications and vacancies, one must look to division 2 of part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The relevant section is 376, which says: Any question respecting the qualifications of a Senator or of a Member of the House of Representatives or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament may be referred by resolution to the Court of Disputed Returns by the House in which the question arises and the Court of Disputed Returns shall thereupon have jurisdiction to hear and to determine the question. Sections 377 to 381 set the parameters for such hearings. What are the facts in the Wood case? There is no disputing that, at the time of his election, he was not an Australian citizen. Section 162 of the Electoral Act states: No person shall be capable of being elected as a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives unless duly nominated. Section 163 (b) states that, amongst other qualifications, he must be an Australian citizen. I understand that subsequently Senator Wood has taken out Australian citizenship. There is little doubt in my mind that he always regarded himself as an Australian citizen. I guess that there is a very simple test of that. I ask Senator Wood: In the recent bicentennial test match did he support Australia or England? If the answer is Australia, quite clearly he regards himself as an Australian citizen. If the answer is England, be gone and good riddance! If, Mr President, he cannot make up his mind, I suggest that we force him to join the Australian Democrats. Obviously, this mistake was not picked up because Senator Wood was on the roll, meeting the requirements of section 93 (1) (b) (ii) which, in effect, allows British subjects prior to the proclamation of the Statute Law Amendment Act 1981 to remain on the roll. I add that, along with the office of profit under the Crown, these are the two areas in which someone may slip through. A variety of politicians could have been affected by and caught under this provision. From my research-and I do not say that it is fully exhaustive-at least 10 members of the Labor Party and three members of the Liberal Party who are members of this Parliament could have been caught out by this provision. It would surprise no-one to know that after exhaustive research it appears to have been established that none of those people were capable of being disqualified at the last election. I must, of course, at this stage congratulate Senator-designate Bob McMullan from my side of politics who as National Secretary wrote to every Labor candidate prior to the 1984 election pointing out the provision of the necessity to be an Australian citizen in order to run. One hopes, and probably suggests, that Mr Eggleton and the others did exactly the same thing. I say to Senator Wood that I guess that is one of the advantages of being part of a larger political machine. Whilst I have indicated that the Senate may have a residual power on this particular matter, it is clearly more desirable to send the matter to the High Court so as to constitute a Court of Disputed Returns under division 2, part XXII of the Electoral Act. Of course, there has been much speculation as to what the consequences would be if the Court of Disputed Returns were to find Senator Wood to have not been qualified as a senator. As always, there are a variety of legal views on this matter. Various alternatives have been suggested. Firstly, if he were disqualified a vacancy under section 15 of the Constitution would be created; secondly, there would need to be a by-election for a single vacancy for the State of New South Wales; or, thirdly, there would be a need for a general election for the 12 senators for New South Wales. Those who argue for a by-election or a general election must confront one major difficulty-that is, section 353 of the Electoral Act, which provides a course for challenging an election and provides that it shall not be challenged in any other way. I turn to what, in my view, would be the consequences of a general election. Taking into account all factors in terms of government policy, the expenditure would be over $10m. That does not include money raised by political parties through either the front door or the back door. The Senate-and this is a more serious objection-would be deprived of the services of 12 senators for a long period. I guess there are not only down sides! On the other hand, it seems to me that the disruption to legislation, the Ministry, the presidency and the shadow Ministry, through no fault of any of the people who have caused these matters, would be most unfair. Of course, we can all speculate on the result of a general election. I have never known anyone to speculate accurately on the result of a Senate election. But even in the current climate, in which members of the Liberal Party are the May Premiers-they will never make it to September, of course-the break-up is likely to be five, five, one and one, because the quota to return a mere five senators is 38.5 per cent. So there will not be a particularly changed environment if we do have a general election. The only time a Court of Disputed Returns has ruled on a similar matter-although it should be noted that this would have been taken under division 1 of part XXII of the Electoral Act-it ruled for a by-election and not a re-election of all senators. In this case, Vardon v. O'Loghlin, the court ruled in favour of a by-election but not in favour of a casual vacancy. As a precedent it is possible that this case may be overturned by the court on several bases. First, after the 1977 amendments there is no longer the same collision between section 15 of the Constitution and the fundamental directive that the Senate is to be chosen by the people of the State in section 7. Secondly, the High Court, in Vardon v. O'Loghlin, may not have given sufficient weight to the arguments that, whereas the Constitution specifically provided for by-elections for the House of Representatives in section 33, it made no specific provision for separate Senate by-elections and indicated, via section 15, a general desire to avoid by-elections. The difficulty with using section 15 to resolve a vacancy in this matter hinges on the fact that Senator Wood may not have ever been validly elected as a senator and, therefore, cannot vacate a seat that he has never held. One legal case that has bearing on this is Hickey v. Tuxworth, in 1987, involving elections for the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. In this case His Honour held the election void because an unsuccessful candidate was unqualified because in the special circumstances of the election it could not be said that the result would have been different if the unqualified candidate had not taken part. I suppose that, to distil that, what they were saying was that if this candidate had not run in such a close result the election could arguably have been different. One must note, however, that this case involved an ordinary election petition similar to division 1, part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. With the best will in the world it is going to be hard to argue in a State as large as New South Wales, no matter how brilliant a candidate, that any candidate affected the end result rather than purely party loyalties. Nevertheless, I would assert that if it can be proved that Senator Wood's lack of citizenship had any effect on the election in 1987, the use of section 15 of the Constitution would more clearly represent the will of the people than a by-election. Any such by-election would be either first past the post or preferential and thus be contrary to the express will of the Senate to use proportional representation in these matters. If a by-election for a single vacancy were to be ordered, it may be necessary to amend the Electoral Act to accommodate such a proposition. One further possibility may appeal to the court-it is a long bow-that bearing in mind the will of the people it could exercise the following power of the Court of Disputed Returns, section 360 (1) (vi), to declare any candidate duly elected who was not returned as elected. In other words, if Senator Wood was not elected it might seek to confirm him now bearing in mind the will of the people. I have no doubt that if the motion I am putting to the Senate is carried the Senate would grant Senator Wood a leave of absence in similar terms to that granted to Senator Webster in 1975. Senator Wood, if declared not validly elected, may be required to return to the Crown all salaries and emoluments granted to him thus far. The Government would have to give consideration, depending on the circumstances, to an ex gratia payment to cover this liability by Senator Wood. On the surface it would seem unfair to impoverish Senator Wood to the point of bankruptcy and thereby inhibit his return to this place in any way. Two further points may need to be addressed. Was the Electoral Commission at fault in accepting Senator Wood's nomination? At elections up to and including that of 1983, it was not unusual for it to be put to divisional returning officers that a particular candidate's nomination should not be accepted because the candidate did not meet some qualification prescribed by the Constitution or the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Such a situation was not only contrary to the common law of elections but also clearly unsatisfactory. It was well recognised that returning officers had neither the qualifications nor the authority to pronounce on the complex legal questions which from time to time arose, or for that matter to reach proper conclusions on any alleged or disputed facts-particularly in the short time available. The 1983 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which we are responsible for, addressed the problem directly and gave statutory effect to the common law. There was inserted in part XIV a new provision, section 172 (1), which explicitly states that a nomination can be rejected only if the formal requirements for its validity have not been substantially complied with. This precludes the divisional returning officer from giving any consideration to the question of whether a candidate is qualified to stand for parliament. The amendment did not, however, resolve the question of what action should be taken if facts possibly pointing to a candidate's disqualification came to light after the close of nominations. In light of this, the Act must be reviewed. In terms of citizenship requirements, we could make the candidate's declaration more explicit and also put greater emphasis on this requirement in electoral forms and literature. In terms of the office of profit under the Crown, this cannot be watered down by Parliament as it is constitutional rather than statutory. Further, we may need to review section 339 (1) (k) of the Act so as to make prosecutions for contravention a bit more feasible. Finally, provisions could be inserted in part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act enabling the Court of Disputed Returns to impose costs on a disqualified candidate where his or her candidacy was a factor in overturning an election result. What we may have in mind there is requiring someone who nominates invalidly to pay not only the costs of the court case and the election but also the other political parties' costs. That should prove to be a sufficient deterrent. I think only the death penalty would manage to be more severe. In summary, in this particular case the Government and, I hope, the whole Senate would argue that once this matter was drawn to the attention of the Senate it could not be ignored. The Senate is not the appropriate body to sit as a tribunal to rule on this matter. It should go to the High Court under the powers conferred on it by the Electoral Act. We have asked the High Court to make some rulings. I make this point very clear: We cannot suggest to the High Court what the remedies are. It will read the Electoral Act. It will know the full powers available to it and it will draw the appropriate conclusions from that. The final thing I would say is that I think it is in the interests of everyone in this chamber to see whether this matter can be dealt with speedily. I remember the nervous tension in this chamber of New South Wales senators when it last arose in December. Half of them actually went to the High Court and missed Question Time to hear the result of that particular challenge when in fact they were fairly confident of the result. Honourable senators may think this chamber is going to hot up with the New South Wales election in the next few weeks, whenever it is, but this matter will be a far more tense and serious one for at least those 12 individuals concerned. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(2.23) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by Senator Robert Ray on behalf of the Government. Indeed, the Opposition has considered this matter over recent days and yesterday it released a statement to the media which said, if I may quote part of it: The President of the Senate and the government have a responsibility to ensure that the requirements of Commonwealth electoral legislation are fulfilled as regards the status of persons elected to Federal Parliament. Accordingly, we believe that they are obliged to seek a ruling in the case of Senator Robert Wood who has admitted not being an Australian citizen at the time of his election last year. The High Court should be asked to make that judgment, acting as a Court of Disputed Returns. If there is no move from the government to ensure that its own legislation is being properly applied, the Opposition will have to further consider how the issue can best be resolved. But there is clearly a primary obligation on the government to take some action and that is what should happen. I therefore welcome the statement today by Senator Ray on behalf of the Government and the content of the motion that he has moved. I was very interested to hear Senator Ray say that it is a matter for the court to decide because I agree completely with that view. It was therefore quite fascinating to listen to Senator Ray give a dissertation on what the court should decide. Our view is quite clearly that it is a matter for the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, to decide. We would not wish to influence the court in its judgment. Therefore I will make no other comment on the comments that Senator Ray made, other than to say that I took it from what he said-and I would seek his confirmation on this-that he has in fact given this chamber an assurance that the motion he has brought forward is wide enough to deal with all relevant issues that might arise from the High Court's consideration of this matter. I notice Senator Ray acknowledging assent to that. Because there have been some references in the Press and some statements made that might suggest the contrary, I want to make it clear that in no way is the Opposition's support of the Government's referral of this matter to the High Court to be seen by Senator Wood or anyone else as an attack on Senator Wood. What we are saying is that there are laws in this country that the Parliament has laid down and that in any civilised and democratic society the laws must be obeyed. If there is a question at issue about whether particular laws have been obeyed, then it is a matter for the judiciary to clarify that position. That is the view that has dictated completely the Opposition's attitude to this case because if we, as parliamentarians, do not adopt an approach such as that, then how on earth can we expect the society on whose behalf we legislate and make the laws of this land to accept the primacy of the rule of law? In my view that is what this matter is all about. We do not, in any way, impute to Senator Wood any deliberate wrongdoing in terms of his Australian citizenship. I, for one, would certainly believe that Senator Wood believed that he was an Australian citizen. A lot of confusion has been generated over recent years because of the changes to the Australian Citizenship Act requirements and to the electoral laws and they have got themselves out of kilter. There are anomalies, to which Senator Ray has already referred. I, too, believe that those anomalies should be looked at by this Parliament at the appropriate time, perhaps through reference of some of those issues to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. But certainly they are issues that, in some shape or form, should be looked at. The Opposition agrees with the technical situation that Senator Ray has outlined. We believe that the course that is being pursued is the correct course not only on Senator Wood's behalf, but on behalf of the whole Parliament and through it the Australian community. Section 377 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act states: When any question is referred to the Court of Disputed Returns under this Part, the President . . . shall transmit to the Court of Disputed Returns a statement of the question upon which the determination of the Court is desired, together with any proceedings, papers, reports, or documents relating to the question in the possession of the House in which the question arises. Therefore I assume that under that provision the debate that occurs here today, along with other relevant papers, will be transmitted to the Court for its consideration. I also note that section 378 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act states: The Court of Disputed Returns may allow any person who in the opinion of the Court is interested in the determination of any question referred to it under this Part to be heard on the hearing of the reference, or may direct notice of the reference to be served on any person, and any person so allowed to be heard or so directed to be served shall be deemed to be a party to the reference. I think those provisions, taken in the totality of the other aspects of this matter, do give a wide range of opportunity for all interested parties to appear before the Court or to give some evidence to the Court, if necessary, and that seems to be an entirely proper state of affairs in a democratic determination of this matter. On behalf of the Opposition, I just reiterate that we welcome the Government's action. It was timely. As I say, we called on the Government yesterday to take the action that it has and we welcome its response to that request. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(2.29) —This is a most unfortunate situation. I think that those of us who attended the High Court of Australia last year in the case concerning Senator Wood's eligibility to sit in the Senate thought that the issue had been resolved once and for all. It would not come as a surprise to all that many people in the Senate that the Australian Democrats have some affinity with Senator Wood, the positions he holds and the policies he fights for. Hence, to us, it is of more than passing interest that Senator Wood finds himself in this situation. It is worth while pointing out that the deficiency in the technical ability of Senator Wood to stand in no way went to the heart of the democratic process. Under the proportional representation system, Senator Wood was elected and that deficiency in no way affected that election. The democratic will of the people certainly was expressed unlike, for example, in a case not too many years ago in Tasmania where some members were found by the court to have infringed the rule regarding the expenditure of amounts of money and hence a whole fresh election was called in a lower House seat. One could say that the expenditure of that additional amount of money would have had an effect on the outcome of the election. In Senator Wood's case there was certainly no effect on the-- Senator Parer —In one case. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, in one case, but in Senator Wood's case there could be no effect since Senator Wood did not know of the position and nobody else knew of it. It could not then have had any effect whatsoever on the way people cast their votes. We are dealing, therefore, with a technical deficiency which, I believe, the Government's motion rightly puts back to the High Court for determination. In speaking on this matter I have more than just a political interest; I also have a personal interest, because I found myself in a somewhat similar circumstance. I came to this country as a migrant at the age of four and having turned 21, and being able to vote, I proceeded to do that and to carry out all the other normal duties of a citizen-and I believed I was a citizen. It was not until I was teaching at the University of Queensland and applied for an overseas scholarship-which I won-that I discovered I was ineligible for the scholarship as I was not an Australian citizen. So I can well understand Senator Wood's circumstance. In the community of migrants from Britain that Senator Wood and I were in, there was a great deal of misunderstanding and false information floating around. That misunderstanding is probably still out there. I remember, when I was growing up, a great deal of reference to an Act which was passed in 1948 which automatically-so-called-made all these people Australian citizens. Since then I have inquired as to the circumstances of that Act and have discovered that that was not the case. But it was a firmly held belief among thousands of people migrating from Britain at that time, post-war, that when they came here they automatically became Australian citizens. This is an unfortunate circumstance. When we were inquiring into this citizenship problem on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, we took a great deal of notice of and had a great deal of discussion on this item that only Australian citizens should be on the roll, as is indicated in our first report. At that stage it was rightly pointed out, and there was unanimous agreement in the Committee at the time, that people who had been on the roll until then should remain on the roll. That, essentially, is still compounding this problem in many ways because when people go on the roll the Australian Electoral Commission quite rightly accepts them as candidates because they are on the roll. Then we have the type of circumstance with which we are confronted today. It is not anyone's fault. It is an accident of our history and of a number of matters. If anybody is at fault I suppose it is this chamber and the other chamber for our not thinking through as clearly as we should what might happen as a result. We put in some provisos but obviously did not put in enough. I welcome the statement of the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) that he and the Government will have another look at this matter. I imagine that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters will certainly have the matter in hand as soon as possible. What might follow down the course is up to the High Court. Hopefully, if at all possible, we will avoid another very expensive election to test the will of the people. The reason I say that comes from my first point, that the will of the people has been clearly expressed and has not been influenced in any way by this technical deficiency. I hope that if we follow through with the proposition we now have before us we will see Senator Wood back here in the not too distant future. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(2.35) —It is one of those nice touches of irony that all of us came back today to find that our seats were missing; we are sitting on chairs instead. I do not believe that the way we are going about this matter is necessarily the appropriate way-not surprisingly. It seems that what the High Court of Australia is being asked to determine is something to do with legislation, not something to do with the Constitution. Senator Short, in his contribution, suggested that we have to accept the primacy of the rule of law, and I accept that, but if we were to do that in this place and forget the fact that we are law-makers, taking Senator Short's contribution at face value, we would not be able to make law here if it involved the changing or deletion of existing law. The motion asks the High Court to look at anomalies in the legislation. The legislation was enacted by this House and the other House. The legislation was put together, or some might say cobbled together, by members sitting in this chamber, and if there is a problem with the legislation and if there are anomalies in it, as there clearly are, the appropriate bodies to look at and change it are the Houses of Parliament. Senator Hill —Is that what you are suggesting-to backdate it? Senator WOOD —That may be a solution. It has been done before. The Western Australian Government did it. Senator Newman —Pretend it didn't happen. Senator WOOD —I am not suggesting that we should pretend it did not happen. I could have pretended it did not happen by not applying for citizenship. It was another irony that I discovered that I was not an Australian citizen only when I tried to get out of the country. I thought it might be a nice idea to visit Fiji to see at first hand what was happening there. When inquiries were made about passports it was discovered, lo and behold, that proof of citizenship was required to get a passport and that I could not get out of the country because I was not an Australian citizen. It was at that time that it came to my notice that I was not a citizen. Had I been intent on cover-up I would not have fronted up to the front counter of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, where everybody else fronts up, and said that I had discovered that I am not a citizen, that I am an Australian senator and that I need to become a citizen. I was stunned, as honourable senators will understand, to find that I was not a citizen. As soon as I discovered the anomaly I applied openly for Australian citizenship, resulting in the letter that was sent to Senator Sibraa, and that is why the matter has come to the Senate. I am not intent on a cover-up. I am intent on having the matter properly resolved. However, the incident has thrown up an anomaly, namely, that there are two classes of citizens in this country-that is, those who are eligible to vote and those who are eligible to hold office. For many years, until recently, the law said that people who are not citizens could sit as elected members, and there have been many people who have sat who have not been citizens. I am not suggesting that that necessarily should be the case. All I am suggesting is that there should be one class of voter and that if one is qualified to select who shall be in office, one should also be qualified to stand for that office. If one is not qualified to stand for that office, one should not be eligible to vote for that office. That is the anomaly, as I see it. Senator Newman —You would take the vote away from the bankrupts, would you? Senator WOOD —I am not talking about bankruptcy; I am talking about citizenship. That may be another anomaly; I do not know. Bankruptcy was another provison which was dealt with in the report Constitutional Qualifications of Members of Parliament-a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in 1981. There is a whole series of anomalies in that document, one of which is the suggestion that if one is entitled to dual citizenship-not necessarily that one is a dual citizen but even by virtue of being entitled to citizenship of another country-that prohibits one and disqualifies one from office. That anomaly exists, but I do not see the Opposition rushing off to the High Court to find out whether there are any members or senators in the Parliament who may be, through no fault of their own, entitled to dual citizenship in Italy, Greece, Czechoslovakia and a number of other countries which have that provision for their nationals. The matter that I am putting to Parliament is that it is a question for legislation. Senator Short today tried to assure me that this was not an attack on me. Senator Chaney also tried to assure me of that yesterday. When I came to this place, I did not expect it to be a kindergarten. I did not expect everybody to be a bunch of nice guys. But I cannot bear the hypocrisy of people kicking heads and pretending to be nice guys as well. If I am to be used as a political football in this case, as I am by the Opposition-- Senator Vanstone —You flatter yourself. Senator WOOD —I do not flatter myself into thinking that my seat in this place is of terribly much importance. This is not high political drama in the sense of the resignation of a member or a Minister or three of the Government. It is hardly high political drama. But creating a climate of disruption in this place is useful, as all senators know. It is the practice in this place that one side will use whatever means are at its disposal to create disruption and discord and to muddy the waters to get whatever political advantage it can out of it. Senator Walters —What about the Government? Senator WOOD —I am suggesting that the Opposition rushed to judgment yesterday and sent Press releases to the media-- Honourable senators interjecting- Senator WOOD —Yesterday, immediately the Opposition had completed its shadow Cabinet meeting, it issued Press releases to the media without the courtesy of informing me about what it had done. The Opposition rushed to judgment, informed the media and created a nice little evening drama on the news, because, as the saying goes, they are in an election mode in New South Wales. It appears that elements in the Liberal Party may feel that by putting the Government on the back foot and forcing it to move in a particular direction on this issue, they may have obtained some electoral advantage. Opposition members have their tails in the air; they are feeling very frisky after the Adelaide by-election and they are thinking that this may be an opportunity to get a by-election in New South Wales for a single senator, which would be a wonderful contest between the two parties. Similar to the case of the Bass by-election in the time of the Whitlam Government, this might enable the Opposition to have a rolling series of by-elections in which it might be able to unseat Government members. It seems to me that the Opposition in this place is not concerned about anomalies in the legislation. It does not want to send this matter to the High Court just to clarify this part of the legislation. It is the Commonwealth Electoral Act that we are talking about; we are not talking about the Constitution. This is an Act which was put together by people in this place. If the people who put the law together are not qualified to comment on or interpret it, that means members of this place and the other place are not entitled to examine legislation once they have enacted it. This was the mistaken view of the British House of Lords for many centuries. The House of Lords felt that once it had enacted a piece of legislation it could not amend it. For many centuries the Upper House in Britain was not able to amend legislation enacted by itself. I suggest to honourable senators that this was the position put by Senator Short. To my mind, the appropriate thing to do would be to take a sensible and rational approach-which is probably a forlorn hope in this place-and send it to a select committee. That has been done in other cases in recent times. Such a Senate select committee could look into the Act and any anomalies and suggest a course of action. If such an inquiry resulted in a request to the High Court to look at the matter, so be it. What offends me is that it is rush to judgment and this matter is being used as a political football. I will try not to keep the Senate too much longer, but I do want to point out another possible problem with the approach being taken. Section 376 of the Act refers to the qualifications required by a person sitting as a senator. It does not refer to overturning an election. How would this place ask the High Court to rule on whether or not my election was valid when section 355 requires a petition to be lodged within 40 days? My qualifications to sit are clear. I am now a citizen and I meet all the other qualifications necessary to continue sitting as a senator. The only possible disqualification would be if my election were declared invalid. For my election to be declared invalid, under section 355 the High Court would have to look at it, and section 355 also clearly requires a petition to be lodged within 40 days. I do not believe that there is any provision within that section for anyone in any other way to have the election looked at. I would be quite happy if the Court came back and said, in reply to the first question, that there is no vacancy. It raises the Keystone Cops prospect of my coming back here to replace myself in the Senate. At lunchtime today Fred Daly was the only person who would sit with me in the dining room. He said, `Senator Wood, you look like me in the days of my factional brawls with the ALP. You are sitting with your friends, I see'. He sat with me and I got some very good advice from Fred. His advice was to make sure I had the numbers within my own Party in New South Wales. My Party issued a statement today saying that it would reappoint me if the matter came to that. I have the numbers. I am assured that I have the numbers. I have the support rather than the numbers, and that is more important than the numbers, I feel. I hope I get the numbers in the High Court of Australia too and I hope Senator Walsh is overruled. I hope he does not have the numbers when the question of an ex gratia payment comes up. I conclude by saying that I felt, and I have always believed, that I was an Australian citizen. I felt no different as a person after I took my affirmation of allegiance on 3 February when I formally became an Australian citizen because I felt no more patriotic then than I did before. The testimony to that is that, apart from supporting the Australian team in the Bicentenary Test, I had never sought to leave the country until recently and I was happy to be here, to be a citizen of this country and to be conscripted, although I chose to go to prison rather than go to war. I was conscripted and voted and I would have thought that were I not an Australian I should have been deported rather than sent to prison. Nowhere along the line was there any suggestion that I somehow or other may not be what I thought I was, and that was an Australian citizen. I hope the Government is sincere in its intention to look at these anomalies. I hope the Opposition will support moves to change these anomalies. It has not in the past; I hope it does in the future so that we do not have two classes of citizen and that those who are capable of being electors are capable of standing for office. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(2.53) —Mr President, I speak briefly as the third British migrant in a row to address this particular matter in the chamber today. I do so only because of comments which Senator Wood made about the attitude of the Opposition to this particular matter. The Senate has been faced, if one follows through what Senator Wood has said, with two alternative approaches to this matter: to make some retrospective changes to the law, which essentially would be to advantage members of parliament in terms of correcting an alleged anomaly in the law, or to seek a determination from the High Court of Australia as to whether in fact there has been a breach of the law, and if there has been a breach of the law for the High Court to advise what the consequences of that are, by declaring that a new election be held, by making a declaration as to who is the senator elected for the position to which Senator Wood was previously returned or by making some other declaration. Senator Robert Ray has clearly outlined some of the alternatives which are available to the Court. Undoubtedly, in terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, when the debate is transmitted, together with the President's letter, to the Court, Senator Ray will have achieved his objective of having drawn the attention of the justices of the High Court-whoever will sit as the Court of Disputed Returns-to the consequences of any of the decisions which they might make, bearing in mind the public interest and their responsibilities as high judicial officers. Undoubtedly the Court will weigh those suggestions appropriately. It is also true, as Senator Wood has said, that the amendments made to the Electoral Act in 1983 have created two classes, not of citizens, but of electors-that is, those electors who were entitled to remain on the electoral roll and those electors who were also entitled to seek election to the Parliament. So there are not two classes of citizens; there are two classes of electors, some of whom have the right to stand as parliamentary candidates and some of whom do not. It should not be thought that that is the only situation in which that is the case. Persons whom the Constitution debars from being selected, such as people who are bankrupt, are nevertheless entitled to continue as electors. People who are in prison are entitled under the Electoral Act to continue as electors but are not entitled to seek election. So Senator Wood's position is not the only alleged anomaly which exists in this regard. I draw attention to the comment made by Senator Wood that the Opposition has used this debate as an attack on him, has sought to turn him into a political football, has sought to create a climate of disruption or discord, or has sought to put the Government on the back foot about this matter-something that should not have been necessary since the Government has a clear obligation in the matter which it has discharged in the correct fashion by the motion which Senator Robert Ray has moved today. It prompts me, therefore, simply to deny that that is the case and to explain to the Senate my own involvement in this matter, which goes back over a number of days. Senator Wood came to my office on Friday last week, seeking my advice on this matter. I spent a considerable amount of time with him, going through the legislation. While he was there I made a call to a senior officer of the Australian Electoral Commission and sought advice. I spent some time on this matter with Senator Wood in the office on Saturday. If Senator Wood wants to make accusations about this matter, his own degree of concern about it was such that when I asked him for a copy of the Electoral Act so that we could go through it together, there was not even a copy available in his office. I raised the matter with you, Mr President, on Sunday at a function we attended-again at Senator Wood's request. I attempted to contact him that evening, using the various telephone numbers he had given me, as he had requested that I report what procedures were likely to take place in this chamber following the conversation that you and I had, Mr President, at lunch time on Sunday. I do not think that he is entitled, as a result of the amount of assistance which I attempted to render him in this matter, to claim in this chamber that the Opposition-and only the Opposition-has sought to make some political capital out of the issue. It is a salutary lesson, which I will certainly take to heart, about the extent to which one renders assistance on that sort of basis in order to have it flung back in one's face across the chamber in this fashion. I certainly will be sufficiently chastened by that experience to bear it well in mind as far as Senator Wood is concerned. The motion which is now before us seems to the Opposition to be the only proper way in which this matter should be resolved-that is, by taking advantage of the express provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act to have the matter determined by the court. I believe that that is also the most advantageous method from Senator Wood's point of view. Unless there were to be retrospective legislation, which I think would raise some very serious questions around this place about validating an act which may be determined by the Court to have been improperly undertaken in the first place, Senator Wood would perhaps be subject to the problems which could arise under the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act of 1975 in terms of having any person paid out of the public revenue a fee for drawing attention to Senator Wood's possible invalid election to this place. Referring this matter to the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, protects Senator Wood's interests. It protects the interests of the Parliament. It protects the interests and integrity of the electoral system. It is entirely the correct way to proceed and has not been influenced by considerations of attempting to get at Senator Wood or to destabilise the political process. I say that bearing in mind that there are as many senators sitting on this side of the chamber who potentially are at risk from what the High Court could decide in this matter as there are on the Government side of the chamber. You, Mr President, would be as acutely aware of that problem as I am. If the intention had been to protect ourselves in that regard, perhaps we would have been attracted to the proposition of some sort of retrospective attempt to fix this problem. We reject that because the integrity of the electoral system is such that this matter should be referred to the courts. That is why that provision is in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is why we believe the Government has done the right thing in moving the motion it has and it is why we will be supporting the motion which Senator Ray has put forward. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.03) —I wish to speak only very briefly because of the excellent exposition undertaken by my colleague Senator Ray of the proper role of the chamber in relation to these matters and his exposition of the law. I wish to comment on one or two matters raised by Senator Wood, but before I do so I make it absolutely clear that the Government, in bringing this motion before the chamber, was in no way acting at the prompting or the behest of the Opposition, as may have been suggested by reading some of the media, listening to some of the radio or watching some of the television reports over the last 24 hours. Quite independently the Government arrived at the decision that this was the best course to follow. It did not require, as I say, any prompting from the other side for us to act in the way which is now before the chamber to decide whether to resolve, to transmit the various questions to the High Court sitting with its jurisdiction as a court of disputed returns. To deal with one or two matters raised by Senator Wood, Senator Wood seems to think that because there is a provision in the law to allow for a petition to query the validity of an election and that that petition must be lodged within 40 days of the return of the writs, that somehow exhausts the processes available to challenge the validity of his being elected as a senator to this place. That is not the case. The Constitution recognises that each chamber, in the end, has a role and a duty in relation to the question of the constitutional propriety of those who sit in this place to participate in its votes and, in particular, to pass laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth of Australia. It may be said in passing, Mr President, that on some occasion you might care to inform the Senate as to the propriety and validity of votes undertaken in which Senator Wood has participated. I do not think anyone has actually challenged the propriety of any votes that have been undertaken with Senator Wood's participation. The Constitution, and the Commonwealth Electoral Act derived from the Constitution and passed in reliance on it, recognises, quite apart from the petitioning process-which is exhausted after 40 days-a quite different process. In section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, one reads: Any question respecting the qualifications of a Senator or of a Member of the House of Representatives or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament may be referred by resolution to the Court of Disputed Returns by the House in which the question arises and the Court of Disputed Returns shall thereupon have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question. So it is quite clear, Mr President, that, as one would expect, there is no way in which this chamber can be prevented by the mere expiration or lapse of 40 days after the return of the writ from dealing with an apparent disqualification of a person who has been returned but who may not have been properly elected by the people of the State whom he purports to represent. I thought I would make it clear that we are acting absolutely in accordance with the Constitution and, of course, the statute. Senator Wood also seemed to suggest-I do not think he made it absolutely explicit-that we should perhaps countenance the idea of passing a law which retrospectively remedies his particular situation. I did not understand him to be saying that there was anything improper, wrong or untoward in the idea that in order to be elected as a member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate, in order to pass laws for the peace, order and government of the Commonwealth, one should be a citizen. If he was not disputing that as being a good, wise and appropriate provision in our law, he seemed to be asking that somehow this chamber retrospectively alter the law to remedy his particular predicament. I think that would be extremely improper and unfortunate. The fact is that the electors of New South Wales, in going to the polls, understood in a notional sense no doubt the general structure of the laws relating to those who were to come before them as candidates, and the qualifications and the remedies available if they were found to be disqualified for one reason or another. To change retrospectively the rules according to which those votes were cast by the electors of New South Wales would, I think, not only be quite wrong but also would lead to a situation where quite properly the public would claim that this chamber is protecting its own, that it was somehow favouring one of its members in a way which would not really be available to others. To that extent, when Senator Wood spoke of two classes of persons, I cannot think of any clearer case of creating two classes of persons than if this chamber were to pass a particular piece of legislation to remedy his predicament. I say in addition to some comments made by Senator Puplick that it is quite clear in other democracies that occasionally there is a different qualification for the holders of elected public office than there is for the electorate as a whole. The clearest and most well known case is perhaps that of the President of the United States of America, who is required to be born in the United States, but as far as I know electors in that country, and indeed the holders of some of the highest offices-I remember Dr Kissinger for example-need not be born in the United States. But one has to be to hold the office of President. Senator Puplick —There is an age qualification in the different chambers. Senator TATE —Is that right? That is just another example. It is not always the case therefore, and it is no iron rule of democracy, that the qualification for those who are to be elected representatives of the people be exactly the same as the qualification for those who are to elect them. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Robert Ray, that this is a matter more properly determined by the High Court sitting in its jurisdiction as the Court of Disputed Returns. I think the questions are framed in a way which will permit that tribunal-I am sure it would do so anyway-to canvass absolutely all of the possibilities under the Constitution to remedy this situation. That, of course, does not preclude the Government from appearing-no doubt this will be done by the Solicitor- General-before the High Court to assist it in its understanding of the Constitution, and no doubt we will be seeking to do that. But I will not canvass the actual remedies and the possibilities; that is up to those who appear before the High Court. It will then be for it, in answer to our transmitting of this matter to it, to make the necessary declarations and orders. The PRESIDENT —Senator Tate, I do not think it would be proper for me at this stage to reply to the questions that you raised on legislation, but if Senator Ray exercises the right of reply he might wish to make some comment on the possibilities. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.10) —I had not intended to speak in this debate this afternoon on the motion moved by the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray). In speaking from this side of the chamber Senator Short expressed the considered position of honourable senators here. I must make some remarks after Senator Wood's unfortunate speech. As Senator Tate has just very properly pointed out, the simple fact is that Senator Wood appears to have been in breach of the requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in having been elected to this place and not having been an Australian citizen at the time. I do not suggest in those events that that came about in any way knowingly on Senator Wood's part; indeed, on the contrary, I join with both Senator Short and Senator Macklin who, I think, both fully accepted the bona fides of Senator Wood in that particular. But I ask myself: What, in those circumstances-that is to say, in the circumstances of a person who finds that inadvertently and unknowingly he or she has been in breach of the law-is the proper course for an honourable man or woman? I suggest to Senator Wood that there are three points which would, to my mind, define the proper course in the circumstances of such an honourable man or woman. The proper course is, first, to make a clean breast of it; to go to you, Mr President, or perhaps to the Minister, or both, and to point out as soon as he became aware of this deficiency in his election that-- Senator Robert Ray —He rang me at least a day later, so he did the right thing. Senator STONE —Yes. If the honourable senator will just wait a moment and contain himself in patience, I will come to that point. The proper course is, first, to make a clean breast of it. I was not aware, and I was not going to suggest, that Senator Wood did not do that. I am very glad to have the additional piece of information which Senator Ray has just offered across the chamber that Senator Wood did, in fact, get in touch with him and informed him within a day of becoming aware of it. I applaud that. On that particular point at least Senator Wood passes the first test. Secondly, I think the honourable course for a person in such circumstances is to ask himself-not to wait for the Government-whether the matter should be considered by the Court of Disputed Returns so that the matter can be adjudicated upon and decided. Thirdly, he should offer to stand aside while that process proceeds and is concluded. Instead, what have we had from Senator Wood this afternoon? Firstly, we had a protest about the course now being proposed by the Government and supported by the Opposition. Secondly, we had a suggestion, to which I think Senator Tate very effectively referred, that we, in this chamber, should somehow ignore the law and fix it up even though, as Senator Puplick very effectively pointed out, the consequences of doing so would be to ward off one possible consequence of the course which we are now taking; that is to say, a consequence which might inhere in that course for a number of senators in this chamber, apart from Senator Wood. Thirdly, we have had a series of aggrieved complaints about how badly Senator Wood has been done by-although I find this rather extraordinary since it is the Government which, after all, is moving this motion-particularly by the Opposition. Senator Puplick has again effectively responded to those complaints. In so far as the last aspect of Senator Wood's speech is concerned, I can only suggest that he might like to reflect upon one recent precedent for a member of one of these chambers-not in fact this chamber, but the other chamber-who felt hurt by Press and media comment about his actions in a certain matter. Of course, I refer to the previous Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Hon. Mick Young, who took his bat and went home because he felt hurt. If Senator Wood feels as hurt as he has suggested, perhaps he might consider doing likewise. I conclude only by saying that I support the motion. The PRESIDENT —I point out to the chamber that Senator Wood approached me some time before I received any official correspondence. Senator WOOD(New South Wales) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. I will not go into the debate at this stage but Senator Puplick, in his address to the chamber, suggested or implied that in some way I had breached a confidence. But Senator Puplick was not the only person, on either side of the House, whom I approached in a friendly way for advice on this matter. The advice that I received from Senator Puplick as to the course of action that should be followed-without going into his advice-was not the course that his Party took. The course that honourable senators on the other side suggested the Government should take was not the course that the Government ultimately took. It seems to me that when I claim the Opposition has done something I am not accusing Senator Puplick personally of having done it. I also claim to have been misrepresented in that I have never claimed that the proper way to resolve this matter is by retrospective legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(3.16) —I want to detain the Senate literally for only a minute or two. I agree with the course that has been proposed by my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, essentially for the reasons he outlined. I do, however, want to offer a mild correction to a view that seems to have run through a very large number of contributions to this debate, a view which is based, I think, on a perhaps excessive view about, or deference to, the mystique of the law. I am referring to that view, which has been expressed on all sides of the chamber, that it is quite unthinkable that a legislative amendment even be contemplated in the circumstances of this case. I take the view that the law is often an ass in the form in which we legislate it and rarely more so than when the law deals with questions of personal status in respect of which there are very often unforeseen anomalies and consequences that emerge well after the time that a piece of legislation is enacted. We are confronted with a clear case of a status anomaly in earlier legislation which was unforeseen and unanticipated at the time. It is at least an arguable view, and I put it no higher than that, that there could be a legislative amendment designed to correct an anomaly-if it is determined by the High Court of Australia to be such-in circumstances where there has been an honest belief based on reasonable grounds. If those sorts of conditions can be satisfied in a matter of status it seems to me to be at least an arguable view-and one that in a proper time and place the Senate ought to be prepared to consider seriously rather than just dismiss out of hand. I am not saying that it is a view that necessarily should prevail. However, it should be debated. Those hounds opposite that are baying on this matter particularly ought to take that view into account in any further consideration of this matter that might arise. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.18) —It is an extraordinary thing that Senator Evans should need to assist his junior ministerial colleague, Senator Ray, in this matter. It seems to me that his intervention has raised some really fascinating questions which perhaps the Senate might wish to debate at a later time. When Senator Ray responds, I would appreciate it if he could explain to the Senate just what Senator Evans was about and what he meant. Did he mean, for example, that it is an anomaly, in our bicentennial year, that it is a requirement of the electoral laws that candidates for election to this place be Australian citizens? Is it being suggested by Senator Evans that it is an anomaly that Australian citizenship be a prerequisite for being a candidate? If he is not suggesting that-- Senator Gareth Evans —It is based on reasonable grounds. It is a suggestion that it is an arguable point. Senator CHANEY —All I can say is that the more Senator Evans helps Senator Ray, the less likely it is that the Senate will come to a sensible conclusion on this matter. As have previous speakers, I support the approach adopted by Senator Ray. It is the proper and principled approach and I trust that the High Court of Australia will be able to give speedy consideration to this matter to remove the doubts which exist at present, not only with respect to the honourable senator concerned, but perhaps to other senators as well. I commend the motion to the Senate, without the glosses which have been added by Senator Evans. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.20) —in reply-Normally in debate on motions of this kind I would thank the rest of the Senate for its support but I shall not do that today because the motion is not one in which any of us takes joy. A number of questions were raised. Senator Tate raised the question of the propriety of votes in respect of this chamber if Senator Wood were to be disqualified. The precedent was set by Justice Isaacs, who found in the case of Vardon v. O'Loghlin that, even though someone had served as a senator, the acts of that person as a senator prior to the declaration were unaffected. I do not know what weight anyone else would give to that decision, which must now be 81 years old, but that is the precedent and I think any legislation or any decision of the Senate would rely on that particular argument. I took Senator Wood, before I heard his personal explanation, to be arguing in favour of retrospective legislation, but he assures the Senate that that is not the case, so I shall not respond to that particular point. People have referred to anomalies in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I make it clear that when the Act was amended by the Fraser Government in 1981 those two provisions were inserted with the support of basically everyone in this chamber. It is not unusual to have different qualifications for electors as opposed to people who can be elected. What we would like, and what we almost assumed, is a fail-safe mechanism within the nomination procedure so that if someone is on the roll that person ought, almost automatically, to be assumed to be qualified to run for this Parliament. It is not so much a weakness in the Act, but a weakness in the advertising of the Act and in the declaration form. Instead of having it as point 20 in small print, the provision should be highlighted along with the provision relating to office of profit under the Crown, to stress its importance to candidates because, as I read from advice previously, it is almost impossible to prosecute people unless they nominate knowingly in breach of those provisions. It is clear in this case that Senator Wood did not do that. Senator Wood also made the point that we are relying on legislation even though its power is conferred on us by the Constitution. He asked why the Senate cannot amend the legislation. By asking that question Senator Wood almost automatically admits that he has a case to answer. That has not been established. The motion requires that someone make a judgment. The Government takes the view that the Senate as a whole should not make that judgment, that it cannot sit as a tribunal and that, in terms of natural justice, it should not set a precedent for the future, especially if its decision were not unanimous in resolving whether someone should remain in the Senate. Therefore, we have a filtering mechanism that is recognised in the Electoral Act to refer matters to the High Court. That is as it should be. The High Court of Australia will make a judgment on whether Senator Wood is qualified to be a senator and will decide what the remedy is. Some people have thought that I may have tried to influence the High Court position. In many ways I have made no public statement on all the ramifications. I must say that a few of my colleagues on the other side have jumped the gun, so I thought it was only fair at least to put my views on the possible alternatives that could be canvassed in this matter. Far be it from me ever to suggest to the High Court what should happen. I did not understand Senator Stone's contribution. He referred to Mr Young not being able to stand the pressure. I thought he went a little more gracefully than being barricaded on the ninth floor of the State parliamentary building. He went with far more grace than Senator Stone's old mentor anyway. This matter gives no joy to anyone. It is necessary to ask the High Court to rule on the matter and we can only hope that the ruling is fair and prompt. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I wish to inform the Senate of the ministerial arrangements following the resignations from the Ministry of the former Special Minister of State, Senator Susan Ryan, on 19 January 1988; the former Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, John Brown, on 17 December 1987; and the former Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Mick Young, on 9 February 1988. For the information of honourable senators, I table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the details of the Ministry, including representational arrangements, together with a more detailed listing of the division of ministerial responsibilities within portfolios where there is more than one Minister. This list may be subject to some further adjustments following discussion between Ministers concerned. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT Third Hawke Ministry Portfolio Minister Representation in other Chamber Department administered *Prime Minister The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, AC, MP Senator Button Prime Minister and Cabinet *Attorney-General and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations The Hon. Lionel Bowen, MP (Deputy Prime Minister) Senator Tate Attorney-General's Minister for Justice Senator the Hon. Michael Tate Mr Bowen Attorney-General's Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices Senator the Hon. Nick Bolkus Mr Bowen Mr Keating Attorney-General's *Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce Senator the Hon. John Button (Leader of the Government in the Senate) Mr Jones Industry, Technology, and Commerce Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business The Hon. Barry O. Jones, MP Senator Button Industry, Technology, and Commerce *Minister for Transport and Communications Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, QC (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Mr Morris Transport and Communications Minister for Transport and Communications Support, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Minister Assisting the Treasurer The Hon. Peter Morris, MP Senator Evans Senator Button Senator Walsh Transport and Communications *Treasurer The Hon. P. J. Keating, MP Senator Walsh Treasury *Minister for Finance Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh Mr Dawkins Finance *Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade The Hon. Bill Hayden, MP Senator Evans Foreign Affairs and Trade *Minister for Trade Negotiations, Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy The Hon. Michael Duffy, MP Senator Evans Senator Button Senator Cook Foreign Affairs and Trade *Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters The Hon. Ralph Willis, MP Senator Button Senator Button Industrial Relations *Minister for Employment, Education and Training The Hon. J. S. Dawkins, MP Senator Walsh Employment, Education and Training; Aboriginal Affairs Minister for Employment and Education Services The Hon. Peter Duncan, MP Senator Walsh Employment, Education and Training Minister for Aboriginal Affairs The Hon. Gerard L. Hand, MP Senator Tate Aboriginal Affairs *Minister for Defence The Hon. Kim C. Beazley, MP (Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the House) Senator Ray Defence Minister for Defence Science and Personnel The Hon. Ros Kelly, MP Senator Ray Defence *Minister for Primary Industries and Energy The Hon. John Kerin, MP Senator Cook Primary Industries and Energy Minister for Resources Senator the Hon. Peter Cook Mr Kerin Primary Industries and Energy *Minister for Social Security The Hon. Brian Howe, MP Senator Richardson Social Security *Minister for Administrative Services The Hon. Stewart West, MP Senator Ray Administrative Services Minister for Home Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications Senator the Hon. Robert Ray (Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Mr West Mr Morris Administrative Services *Minister for Community Services and Health The Hon. Neal Blewett, MP Senator Cook Community Services and Health; Veterans' Affairs Minister for Housing and Aged Care The Hon. Peter Staples, MP Senator Cook Community Services and Health Minister for Veterans' Affairs The Hon. Ben Humphreys, MP Senator Reynolds Veterans' Affairs *Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Senator the Hon. Graham Richardson Mr Punch Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Minister for the Arts and territories The Hon. Gary Punch, MP Senator Richardson Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories *Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Multicultural Affairs The Hon. Clyde Holding, MP Senator Reynolds Senator Reynolds Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Minister for Local Government, and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women Senator the Hon. Margaret Reynolds Mr Holding Mr Hawke Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs * Minister in the Cabinet DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN PORTFOLIOS ATTORNEY-GENERAL (The Hon. Lionel Bowen, MP) Minister for Justice (Senator the Hon. Michael Tate) Bankruptcy; policy and administrative responsibility for legal aid and financial assistance, including carriage of negotiations with the States on new legal aid agreements (but with the Attorney-General retaining overall responsibility for the negotiations with the States); remissions of fines and penalties; prisoners; marriage celebrants; policy and police liaison including membership of appropriate Commonwealth-State committees; Protective Services Coordination Centre; Territories matters coming within the Attorney- General's portfolio (other than the matters involving the ACT); Criminology, including youth and crime; Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills. Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator the Hon. Nick Bolkus) Responsibility for all consumer affairs matters (including relevant statutory responsibilities under the Trade Practices Act) and representation of the Government on Commonwealth-State ministerial committees related to consumer affairs. Senator Bolkus also assists the Treasurer in relation to prices. MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY, TECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCE (Senator the Hon. John Button) Minister for Science, Customs, and Small Business (The Hon. Barry O. Jones, MP) Science policy and activities including CSIRO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and the encouragement of effective linkages between the research community and industry; Policy in relation to small business; Management and day-to-day decision making in connection with the Customs Service; Day-to-day administrative matters associated with the building industry. The two Ministers will work together in such areas as the National Industry Extension Service, the Management Investment Companies program, and policy in relation to the information industries. MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS (Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, QC) Minister for Transport and Communications Support (The Hon. Peter Morris, MP) General assistance in the administration of the portfolio; Specific responsibilities for particular areas of the portfolio including road and rail transport. Mr Morris is also Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, with particular responsibility for the Bicentenary, and assists generally in the portfolio. He also assists the Treasurer in a range of matters referred to him, including taxation, foreign investment, loan raising and debt management, and functions of an administrative nature. MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE (The Hon. Bill Hayden, MP) Minister for Trade Negotiations (The Hon. Michael Duffy, MP) Within the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio, day-to-day responsibility for the administration and implementation of Australia's bilateral and multilateral trade policy and negotiations, including relevant Ministerial meetings and diplomatic contacts; Coordination and conduct of Australia's position in the ``Uruguay Round'' of multilateral trade negotiations-and more generally the promotion of a more equitable international trading environment; Administration and implementation of the agreement on Closer Economic Relations with New Zealand; Implementing Australia's relations with UNCTAD; Responsible for operations of trade related councils involving the Australian business community. Mr Duffy also assists the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in relation to major commodity negotiations and export promotion. MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING (The Hon. J. S. Dawkins, MP) Minister for Employment and Education Services (The Hon. Peter Duncan, MP) Employment and Training-Adult Training Program, Youth Training Program, Community Employment Program, including New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, JOBSTART, Mobility Assistance (Relocation Assistance Schemes and Fares Assistance Scheme), existing programs of Industry and Regional Employment Assistance, Community Youth Support Scheme, Community Training Program, including Information Technology Centres and Community Volunteer Program; Commonwealth Employment Service-network operations, including responsibilities under Unemployment Benefit and Job Search Allowance arrangements, youth access centres, and job search training; Youth Bureau; Student allowances delivery. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (The Hon. Gerard L. Hand, MP) Administration of Commonwealth Aboriginal affairs responsibilities. This will include the development of the new Commission to replace the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission. Mr Hand also assists Mr Dawkins in relation to those aspects of the Aboriginal Employment Development Program administered by Mr Dawkins' department and other appropriate Aboriginal education programs. MINISTER FOR DEFENCE (The Hon. Kim C. Beazley, MP) Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (The Hon. Ros Kelly, MP) Defence Science and Technology, including development of policies and programs for the marketing of products; Oversight and administration of service personnel policies relating to members and ex-members of the Australian Defence Force and their families; Defence Housing Authority; Some categories of Australian Defence Force assistance to the civil community; Community matters arising from, and in conjunction with, Australian Defence Force operational training activities; Development of a strategy to ameliorate the difficulties created for Service personnel on postings arising from differing States laws and requirements relating to education, transport etc. MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY (The Hon. John Kerin, MP) Minister for Resources (Senator the Hon. Peter Cook) Mineral commodities-Bureau of Mineral Resources; Petroleum, energy matters-Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority; Natural resource management-Murray-Darling Basin Commission; Forestry matters; Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; Corporate Services. MINISTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (The Hon. Stewart West, MP) Minister for Home Affairs (Senator the Hon. Robert Ray) Electoral matters; Parliamentary and ministerial services (including the New Parliament House Executive Wing, the National Media Liaison Service and Ministerial Press Pool); Information coordination; National Archives; Honours and national symbols policy. Senator Ray also assists the Minister for Transport and Communications in relation to specific matters referred to him from time to time such as shipping and waterfront matters. MINISTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND HEALTH (The Hon. Neal Blewett, MP) Minister for Housing and Aged Care (The Hon. Peter Staples, MP) Housing assistance functions, including the Supported Accommodation Assistance program; The Office for the Aged; Aged Residential Care; Home and Community Care program; Therapeutic goods and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission; The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Minister for Veterans' Affairs (The Hon. Ben Humphreys, MP) Administration and policy development of services to veterans. (Mr Humphreys also assists Dr Blewett generally across the Community Services and Health portfolio.) MINISTER FOR THE ARTS, SPORT, THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND TERRITORIES (Senator the Hon. Graham Richardson) Minister for the Arts and Territories (The Hon. Gary Punch, MP) The ACT Administration; Other Territories excluding Antarctica; Cultural affairs. MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS (The Hon. A. C. Holding, MP) Minister for Local Government (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reynolds) Local Government and regional development. Mr Holding and Senator Reynolds also assist the Prime Minister in relation to Multicultural Affairs and the Status of Women respectively. Within the portfolios not covered in the above list, other Ministers have not been appointed. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Commercial Sponsorship To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service. That the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. That the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button (from 19 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 178 citizens) and Jones (from 86 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of the undersigned citizens of Maranoa respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problems facing rural women according to the ``Survey of Rural Women'' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will add to this problem, not decrease it. Your petitioners humble pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gareth Evans (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 91 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the proposed Australia Card is an intrusion into the rights of the individual in a free and democratic country. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government not proceed with this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 334 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 107 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax 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 Chaney (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Aboriginal community of Wujal Wujal respectfully show: Whereas your petitioners of the people of Wujal Wujal were granted their land in perpetuity on 17th December and whereas your petitioners affirm their right to self management of their lands, and whereas your petitioners earnestly hope that the Daintree-Cape Tribulation-Wujal Wujal road remain open, and whereas eighty-four per cent of the lands of the people of Wujal Wujal are proposed to be included in the world heritage listing of the wet tropical rain forest of north-east Queensland, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Senate and the Government totally reject any proposal to list the wet tropical rainforests of North East Queensland. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 95 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners wish to retain the Medicare Agency operated by A.P.P.M. Council, thereby reversing the decision of the Health Insurance Commission to close the agency on March 31, 1988. We further wish you to know that the loss of the agency will cause us severe inconvenience and that we believe that our agency is efficient and offers a high standard of service in processing Medicare claims. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Devlin (from 401 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. Constitutional protection for historical and environmental assets is needed. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the government to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution so that: The Federal Government has the bounden constitutional duty, which any citizen may legally require it to perform and a right superior to State and local governments, to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore all we hold in trust for the future- Including relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance and- To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act nationally and internationally in any matter seen as related to these including- To prevent military and commercial use of uranium and derivatives, beach and related mining; to preserve Heritage Areas, the Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia oppose the granting of certain areas of land in connection with the Jawoyn (Katherine Area) land claim. Specifically, petitioners request that the following lands not be granted. (a) That part of the Katherine Gorge National Park comprising the Katherine Gorge system and adjacent developed areas and all areas to the north thereof, including Edith Falls; (b) The whole catchment areas of those sites under consideration for utilisation as future water supply for the Katherine township and, in particular, the catchments of McAddens and Dorothy Creeks. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs does not make a land grant, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, as recommended by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in his report of 6th October 1987, but that he heeds the desire of the undersigned citizens of Australia, thereby excluding from grant, the areas defined above. by Senator Tambling (from 208 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the imposition of the $250.00 administrative charge will: (1) Prove a disincentive for all students-particularly part-time and mature-age students-from continuing their tertiary studies. (2) Lead to higher levels of youth unemployment as fewer students will now enrol in tertiary studies. (3) Impose economic hardship upon the student population at large. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Vote to reject the imposition of the administrative charge, or, at the very least, vote to impose a lower fee on students who are not full-time. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walsh (from 326 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers, about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should (1) block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. (2) ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. (3) ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X-ray etc.) (4) ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests that the current social obligations and responsibilities of Telecom Australia be protected. We call on the Federal Government to: (a) Maintain Telecom as a wholly Government owned statutory authority. (b) Maintain unqualified commitment to the principle of universal service and cross subsidy and recognise the importance of the `natural monopoly' in telecommunications. (c) Ensure that all citizens and particularly rural subscribers are not disadvantaged in terms of cost or service in the provision and availability of telecommunications facilities in Australia current and future. (d) Reduce the percentage of Telecom's `profit' being paid to the Government. (e) Increase Telecom's borrowing capacity. (f) Increase the use of Telecom's regulatory powers to protect the integrity of Australia's communications and prevent its fragmentation. (g) Establish a firm manufacturing base in telecommunications via Telecom and locally based private industry. (h) Increase spending on Telecom's research and development. (i) Integrate the use of AUSSAT, Telecom and OTC and eventually establish a single telecommunications authority in Australia. Your petitioners therefore do humbly pray that the Federal Government takes the appropriate steps to reject the current deregulation and/or privatisation threats to Telecom Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament the petition of the undersigned residents or persons employed in the Australian Capital Territory points out to Honourable Senators that: It is appropriate that State and local government policy and administrative functions should be managed by persons accountable to ACT residents, And that all Australian residents would agree that there should be no taxation without representation, And that the Commonwealth Parliament should give just and equitable consideration to redressing the wrongs afflicting the ACT. Your petitioners therefore request urgently that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should agree to provide the ACT with an elected form of self government which will be responsible for all the functions of the ACT Office of Administration and, in addition, for those of local law enforcement and the administration of justice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 4 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate commends the men and women of the Australian Defence Forces for their outstanding contribution to Sydney's Australia Day Bicentennial celebrations and notes that the success of the day was in large part due to their willing participation on what was a holiday for other Australians. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the presence outside Parliament House on 16 February 1988 of a group of people from Treaty '88 and the Bicentennial Protest Group; (b) notes too that this the Federal Government has publicly recognised Aboriginal ownership of Australia before 1788; (c) believes that 1988 is a suitable occasion to resolve the question of sovereignty and considers it a basic issue of justice; and (d) calls on the Government to honour its commitment to indigenous Australians by instigating a treaty based on full consultation with Aborigines during 1988. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That if a Senate Minister does not answer a question on notice asked by a senator within 30 days of the asking of that question, and does not, within that period, provide to the senator who asked the question an explanation satisfactory to that senator of why an answer has not yet been provided, then: (a) at the conclusion of Question Time on any day after that period, the senator may ask the relevant Minister for such an explanation and (b) the senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice `That the Senate take note of the explanation'; or (c) in the event that the Minister does not provide an explanation, the senator may, without notice, move a motion condemning the Minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation. (2) That the provisions of the foregoing resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Advance Australia Foundation-Annual Report 1986-87-pursuant to section 18 of the Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984. 2. Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board-Annual Report 1986-87-pursuant to sub-section 46 (3) of the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983. 3. Chicken Meat Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 4. Federal Airports By-laws-pursuant to section 27 of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. 5. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority-Annual Report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 60 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. 6. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service-Annual Report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 52 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice as the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police. Has the Minister received or called for any interim report from the Australian Federal Police into the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd undisclosed donation to the Australian Labor Party? Which officials of the Australian Labor Party, or present or former Ministers, or other members of parliament, have been to date interviewed by the Australian Federal Police in relation to this matter? Finally, will any and all reports on this subject from the Australian Federal Police be made public, on this occasion in full? Senator TATE —I have not received any Australian Federal Police report, either interim or final, on the matter to do with the company concerned. As to whether certain categories of persons have been interviewed by the Federal Police, I have no information as to that but I would regard it as an operational matter and one which ought not to be disclosed. It is not for ordinary citizens or this Parliament to know exactly who has been interviewed by police in the course of their investigations. As to whether that report will be tabled or made public, as I understand it the course of events would be that the report would be made available to the Australian Electoral Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I will take further advice on it but I do not think the report even comes to me for decision as to whether or not it ought to be made public. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I refer to media reports of allegations against the Minister. How does the Minister respond to allegations by the honourable member for Dawson and the honourable member for Flinders, reported in the media on 3 February 1988, that he misled the Parliament in answering a question from Senator Tambling on 14 December 1987? Senator TATE —Of course I am aware of the allegations which have been made, and I would like to take this opportunity to give some sort of reply to Senator Jones, and thence to the chamber. Allegations were made that I had misled the Parliament in answer to a question from Senator Tambling which I gave to the Senate on 14 December 1987. I think honourable senators will already have received a copy of my media release of 3 February. Before I continue, I table that release. When I answered Senator Tambling's questions on 14 December I had two written briefs, dated 14 September and 30 November, and an oral briefing of 10 December to draw on. The brief of 14 September contained four paragraphs, which were the substantial advice to me concerning Federal Hotels Ltd's suitability to hold a licence in relation to the Christmas Island casino. I read those paragraphs to the Senate. Then followed two paragraphs inviting me to note certain matters concerning Dr Ho's association with TAL Holdings Ltd. At all stages, and most emphatically by the Australian Federal Police officer who briefed me orally on 10 December, I was advised not to release those paragraphs which the Australian Federal Police regarded as confidential. I accepted that advice, as have other Ministers when provided with certain information by law enforcement agencies. I therefore refrained from reading those paragraphs verbatim. Nevertheless, I drew on those paragraphs, both in my general answers of no to Senator Tambling's questions and specifically to inform the Senate of Ho's relationship to TAL Holdings as at 14 September. This relationship had been superseded by further disposition of his shares-the subject of the oral briefing on 10 December. I informed the Senate of this sequence. By the end of the answer, I had given as succinct, full and up to date account of Dr Ho's position as was consistent with maintaining the recommended confidentiality as to certain details in the two paragraphs. It was always my intention to give the fullest possible information to the chamber. I table the brief given to me on 30 November, as returned by me to the AFP, with a side notation which indicates I was anxious to quote as much as possible from the brief of September 14. It reads: Urgent that I have more for Parliamentary reply: surely most of the memo of 14/9 could be used. It was in response to this notation and the new situation on the share register which led the AFP officer, Chief Superintendent Whiddett, to call on me on 10 December for an oral briefing. Chief Superintendent Whiddett, in consultation with my Senior Private Secretary, Daryl Smeaton, composed a summary of the latter part of the brief of 14 September and advised that I should use those words as they were consistent with the substance of the brief and yet did no damage to reputation. I table that summary. Those words, drafted as a substitute for those portions of the brief of 14 September I did not read out verbatim, are the exact words to be found in my reply to Senator Tambling. That was why I was confident that I had given Senator Tambling the fullest possible answer drawing on the written and oral briefs to me and it was that which I had intended to assert in answer to his supplementary question. In so far as my words conveyed the impression that I had quoted every word from every part of the briefs of 14 September and 30 November, I regret that choice of words and apologise to Senator Tambling and the Senate if that impression was conveyed. I emphasise that those paragraphs, upon which I drew but did not directly quote in whole, do not contain anything which undermines or contradicts any part of the answer given by me to Senator Tambling. I most certainly did not mislead the Senate as to Dr Ho's relationship with TAL Holdings Ltd and the AFP's assessment of its significance to the application by Federal Hotels for the Christmas Island casino licence. I stand by the answer no to each of Senator Tambling's questions, which were: Was the clearance by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) of Federal Hotels Ltd for the Christmas Island casino licence conditional on Dr Stanley Ho divesting himself of his interests in Tal Holdings Ltd, Federal's owners? Has the Australian Federal Police ever had reservations about Dr Ho's involvement with Federal Hotels? Given that Dr Ho's shares were still on Tal's register on 18 November, will the Minister recommend new inquiries to ensure that there is no continuing connection between Dr Ho and Federal Hotels? It is well known to honourable senators that I provided the full briefs of 14 September and 30 November to the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Peter Reith, on a confidential basis, but without prejudice to Mr Braithwaite's pursuing of such freedom of information (FOI) rights as he may possess. I completely reject Mr Reith's assertion that those paragraphs reveal that I misled the Senate as to the substance of my answer. It would be easy, and personally satisfying, to authorise the release of those two paragraphs. I could overrule both the earlier advice of the AFP to me and also the AFP's own absolutely independent judgment that these paragraphs not be disclosed in response to an FOI request. I have been invited by the media to do so ever since this story broke. However, it would be quite improper for me to release those paragraphs for my own political reasons. This is the invidious position I find myself in, but I rely on this chamber's acceptance of the longstanding practice of Ministers with responsibility for law enforcement not to publish allegations which, being without foundation after investigation, could nevertheless harm the reputation of an individual who is the subject of the allegation. I intend to abide by that longstanding practice. Senator Lewis-Mr President, I seek leave to move that the Senate, firstly, takes note of the answer of the Minister for Justice to a question asked by Senator Jones; secondly, censures the Minister for Justice for knowingly misleading the Senate in his answer to a question without notice asked by Senator Tambling on 14 December 1987; and, thirdly, calls on the Minister for Justice to resign. Senator Harradine-On a point of order, Mr President: If leave is granted, will that do away with the rest of Question Time? Senator Lewis-It could be debated after Question Time. With respect, may I suggest it is up to the Government as to whether it wishes to have this debate today. If it does, after Question Time it could set aside Standing Orders to enable me to introduce the debate. Senator Button-Have it now. Leave is granted. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Harradine-No. The PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, as I understand the situation, the debate can take place and I can continue to call on questions afterwards. I again ask: Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Motion of Censure Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.40) —I move: That the Senate- (a) takes note of the answer given by the Minister for Justice to a question asked by Senator Jones this day; (b) censures the Minister for Justice for knowingly misleading the Senate in his answer to a question without notice asked by Senator Tambling on 14 December 1987; and (c) calls on the Minister for Justice to resign. Firstly, may I say that Senator Tate came to this Senate with the reputation of being an upright and honest man with a deep Christian commitment and his qualifications for that reputation certainly are impeccable. He is a Bachelor of Laws of the University of Tasmania, a Master of Arts of Oxford University and a former lecturer in law at the University of Tasmania and he was a dean of that faculty in 1977. In addition, he is a former legal adviser to the Tasmanian Government and was a delegate to Australian Constitutional Conventions from 1973 to 1977. Senator Tate served this Senate as a member of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for nearly five years in opposition and as Chairman in government until he became a Minister. In addition, he was Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and Chairman of the Senate Select Committee into Allegations Concerning a Judge. Senator Tate was a member of the Catholic Committee for Justice and Peace for six years and has been President of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship since 1985. He has a reputation as an excellent wordsmith. I repeat that Senator Tate has a reputation as an excellent wordsmith and with his experience he should have a deep understanding of the relationship between the Parliament and the Ministry. They are his qualifications: one then looks at the responsibilities which he has undertaken as a Minister. I wish to refer to something said by my illustrious predecessor, the late Senator Greenwood, on 13 May 1975 when the Senate was debating a motion of censure of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs. I adopt the words of Senator Greenwood when he said: At the heart of our system of responsible government is the accountability of the Executive to the Parliament. Ministers are members of the Parliament. They are responsible to the Parliament for the discharge of their ministerial duties. Ministers are stewards of a trust and in the Parliament they may be asked questions as to how they have discharged that stewardship. It is of the very essence of the system under which this country is governed that when questions are asked of Ministers honest answers are given. The Parliament ought not to be misled. The Parliament ought not to be lied to. The Parliament ought not to be denied that knowledge which is essential to the proper government of the country. There are ministerial tactics by which an evasion of a question may be attempted . . . I will stop quoting there because Senator Greenwood then made some comments about the then Minister for Foreign Affairs which are not relevant. Senator Greenwood went on to say: There are the occasional slips of the tongue. There are the occasional mistakes. This motion takes no account of those incidents. What we are concerned with is the conduct of the Minister for Foreign Affairs when, in answers to questions on a matter of public moment, he misled the Parliament and misled the Senate, knowing that the answers he was giving were inconsistent with the facts which he had told the Senate were known to him. I adopt those words of the late Senator Greenwood in relation to the action of the Minister for Justice in his answer to Senator Tambling. Notwithstanding those very high qualifications which Senator Tate brought to the Senate when he became a Minister, we were concerned back on 20 October of last year with an answer which he gave to the Senate in response to a question from Senator Crowley about a decision of Justice K. Murray in the Family Court of South Australia when Senator Tate, without waiting to read a copy of the judgment of that Justice, stigmatised the judgment as `extraordinary and even bizarre'. Senator Tate thereby encouraged ill-informed, widespread and inaccurate publicity for the judgment which ultimately resulted in the identification of the parents and their children contrary to the prohibition of the Family Law Act. The Opposition noted that answer with some considerable concern. We endeavoured over a period of days to give Senator Tate the opportunity to retract and withdraw. He refused to take that opportunity. We noted the answer with considerable concern but forgave the action of a man of his calibre, of his integrity and honesty and history as perhaps some aberration. Now we come to the events that led to this censure motion, the answer of Senator Tate on 14 December 1987. Senator Tambling asked Senator Tate in his capacity as Minister for Justice questions about the Australian Federal Police investigations into the application by Federal Hotels Ltd for the Christmas Island casino licence and a certain Dr Stanley Ho. Senator Tate in answer, as he indicated today, said: The question asked was in three parts and the answer to each of them is no. I stop at this point to reiterate that Senator Tate has told the Senate that the answer to each of the three parts of the question was no and he has repeated that today. I do not know whether by that answer he has in any way misled the Senate. I do not allege that in that answer by saying no he has misled the Senate. That is not where the Senate was misled on the knowledge which we have. Senator Tate has it within his own knowledge and his own conscience, and his Prime Minister could also have it within his own knowledge, as to whether or not he in fact misled the Senate in any way by his answer of no. My colleague in the other place, Mr Peter Reith, also has that within his knowledge but he is treating it confidentially-as he should. So I am not able to make that allegation. But Senator Tate was not satisfied to give that answer or to qualify it in any way. He wanted to gild the lily. He went on: But I think the Senate deserves a fuller answer. It just so happens that I have a fairly extensive brief to fill out those simple `no' answers to the three parts of the question. I could do no better than to read from the brief. On 14 September 1987 the Federal Police provided me with the following advice- one should note those words `the following advice'- on its investigations into Federal Hotels Ltd-that is in relation to its proposed development of a casino on Christmas Island. I quote directly from the advice: Senator Tate went on to quote from the advice. I have not had a chance to look at it but I presume it may be part of the material tabled here today. Senator Tate —No. Senator LEWIS —Senator Tate advises me across the chamber that it is not. Nevertheless, it is set out in the response to the freedom of information application obtained by Mr Braithwaite and I will come to that in due course. At the end of that quotation Senator Tate said: That is the end of the advice to me on 14 September. That is simply not true; there is no question about it. I now turn to the material provided to a member of parliament, Mr Ray Braithwaite, under the Freedom of Information Act. There is a briefing document from an officer on behalf of the Commissioner of Police in which the issue is set out and which contains the four paragraphs that Senator Tate read into the Hansard. On the second page there is a blank space, and written across that blank space are the following words: `Deleted section concerning Dr Ho'. So Senator Tate apparently had before him two or three paragraphs, about half a page of information, concerning Dr Ho. That was what the question was all about. But he told the Senate: That is the end of the advice to me on 14 September. I seek leave to table this document which is dated 14 September 1987, signed by R. Farmer, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, for R. A. Grey, Commissioner of Police. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate and table the document. Senator Tate continued: On 30 November the Federal Police provided me with further advice following allegations in Parliament on 27 October regarding a director of Federal Hotels Ltd and his association with persons and companies of alleged ill-repute. The AFP informed me that as a result of these allegations a number of Federal Hotels directors were re-interviewed. Those inquiries did not, however, alter the findings of the earlier advice given to me. At that stage all senators present believed that Senator Tate had picked up his brief and read to us from it. Senator Tate added some more words to his answer, but in due course Senator Tambling asked Senator Tate to table the paper from which he was reading. In response Senator Tate said: No, I will not table those reports. Senator Tate —again, misleading the Parliament-then said: I have given a very full answer, as was contained in my brief, which is directly, and without any modification or deletion by me, what the AFP presented to me on 14 September and 30 November. There can be no doubt that that was a deliberate misleading of the Senate. Senator Tate quite deliberately had not quoted from part of the report. He said that that was for a very good reason. That may very well be so, but the fact is that he did not quote from it, yet he told the Senate: I have given a very full answer, as was contained in my brief, which is directly, and without any modification or deletion by me, what the AFP presented to me on 14 September and 30 November. Senator Chaney —And that is clearly untrue. Senator LEWIS —As my colleague Senator Chaney says, that is clearly untrue. There can be no doubt about it. Truth is the one simple basis on which this Parliament exists. With the knowledge we have today, it is clear that the answer was not true and that the Minister deliberately misled the Senate. That occurred on 14 December. The Senate rose on 18 December. So the Minister had four days in which he could have come back and said, `In that answer I really did not make it clear that I did have some more information which I had been told to keep confidential, so I really did not give a full answer. There was some additional information in my brief about which I did not tell the Senate'. He had four days-during which time his officers must have drawn his attention to what he said-in which to consider the matter and tell the Senate that he had made a mistake, that he did not mean to do it, that there was some explanation as to why he did it in that way, and that he did not really mean to mislead the Senate. But no; Senator Tate did not take that opportunity. What did he do? In due course he discovered that Ray Braithwaite, a member of the House of Representatives, was not satisfied and that he had made an application under the freedom of information legislation for disclosure of this report. Faced with that application, Senator Tate knew that the truth must then come out. With the clear knowledge that he was about to be found out, Senator Tate offered to tell us the truth, or some part of the truth. On 3 February he issued a media release which restated the misleading advice that he had given to the Senate. It reads: By the end of the answer I had given as succinct, full and up-to-date account of Dr Ho's position- Senator Tate finally qualified his answer by adding- as was consistent with maintaining the recommended confidentiality as to certain details in the two paragraphs. So he finally exposed the fact that he did have some confidential information which he was not prepared to reveal to the Senate and which may have been relevant to the answer which he gave to the Senate. It is a great pity that Senator Tate did not say that in his answer to the Senate, but the truth of the matter is that he misled the Senate. But he did say in that media release-and I presume he went on to say it in the documents he tabled earlier today: In so far as my words conveyed the impression that I had quoted every word from every part of the briefs of 14 September and 30 November, I regret that choice of words . . . He quite simply acknowledged that he had not quoted every word of the brief, but that he had conveyed the impression that he had quoted every word of it. I turn to some supporting information. At the same time, in an endeavour to cover his tracks, Senator Tate offered my colleague in the other place, Mr Peter Reith, the opportunity to view the brief. Senator Tate believed that that would clear him. Mr Reith has made a statutory declaration about that. It sets out the history of how this information happened to be provided to him. Paragraph 7 of the statutory declaration states: Senator Tate has claimed that the two paragraphs- that is how I know that there are two paragraphs; earlier I had not appreciated how I knew that- which have remained confidential support his explicit answer to the question in the Senate. Paragraph 8 states: After I received the document from Senator Tate I came to the conclusion that it did not support his claim that he had not misled the Parliament. As I was concerned about the matter, I rang the Senator to discuss it with him and to tell him that I could not in all honesty accept his claim. I said to him that any reasonable person reading the document would have to agree that my interpretation was not unreasonable. About half an hour or thereabouts after that first phone call the Senator rang me back to say that he had, since our last conversation, had further discussions with the Australian Federal Police to confirm his interpretation of the document. I responded that the fact that the Minister had felt a need to ring the Australian Federal police only confirmed in my mind that the alternative interpretation that I had put to the Minister was obviously open on any reasonable reading of the document. Paragraph 9 states: In my view the Minister has misled the Senate. I seek leave to table a copy of the statutory declaration of Peter Keaston Reith. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I table the document. Senator Chaney —It is quite clear he misled the Senate twice in the one answer. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Chaney is saying across the table to Senator Button, it is quite clear that the Minister misled the Senate twice in one answer. For all we know he may have misled the Senate thrice and misled us again today. Having read the report by Mr Farmer of the Federal Police, the two paragraphs deleted and the words `deleted section concerning Dr Ho', I have great difficulty in believing the honour- able senator's answer to the question, `Have the Australian Federal Police ever had reservations about Dr Ho's involvement with Federal Hotels?' which is no. I am not accusing him. But on the basis of the simple, intellectual application of fundamental principles, it is very strange to have those two paragraphs deleted and for Senator Tate to say that the answer to the question `Have the Australian Federal Police ever had reservations about Dr Ho's involvement with Federal Hotels?' is no. Senator Button —Why is that? Senator LEWIS —I do not know. It is entirely within Senator Tate's knowledge. He is keeping it to himself. I am making my allegations in relation to the matters where we have on the record clear evidence that he misled the Senate twice in the one answer. This is a matter not of semantics but of substance. The Minister's answers were misleading and misled the Parliament. On his own admission today, on the documents he has tabled and on his answer to the question, he misled the Parliament. He acknowledges that he misled the Parliament. Let me talk about the fundamental responsibility of a Minister not to lie to or mislead the Parliament. Let me remind the Senate of what Prime Minister Gough Whitlam said in his letter to the Governor-General when he recommended the dismissal of the late Mr Rex Connor: I took this course in order to uphold a precise and fundamental principle of parliamentary government. The principle is that the Parliament must be able to accept assurances given to it by a Minister and if those assurances prove to be misleading the Minister concerned must be held responsible. That was a former Labor Prime Minister. I can recall Australian Labor Party senators, when they were on this side of the chamber, calling for the resignation of the then Attorney-General Senator Peter Durack for something which had happened in a remote branch office of his department, of which he had no direct knowledge and over which he had no direct control. But those subtleties about ministerial responsibility seem to have escaped members of the Australian Labor Party now that they are in office. Here is a deliberate act by the Minister, with the brief in front of him. It was not some mere oversight, not something he failed to remember in the hurly-burly of Question Time. He had the brief in front of him and he quite deliberately misled the Parliament. Even the Australian Labor Party has acknowledged from time to time the fundamental principal of ministerial responsibility. I have quoted what Mr Whitlam said when he wrote to the Governor-General, but let me also quote something else Mr Whitlam said when he was dealing with Mr Cairns. I quote from page 356 of a book called A Certain Grandeur by Graham Freudenberg: In a letter to Whitlam on 2 July Cairns wrote: I answered the question in Parliament on June 4th, 1975, consistently with my recollection of these events. I answered the question as I did, believing that I spoke the truth. I have no recollection at all of having signed the letter quoted in your press statement, and I have a clear recollection that I rejected it because I found it unacceptable. I do not intend to resign from any position I hold because I answered the question in Parliament in the clear and sincere belief that what I said was true. Here is a case where a Minister believed what he said was true. What did Mr Whitlam do? He replied immediately, saying: I do not regard these documents as satisfactory explanations of the two issues which I put to you. Since you write that you do not intend to resign from any position you hold, I must advise the Governor-General to terminate your commission. He will receive me at 8 o'clock this evening. The same book, A Certain Grandeur by Graham Freudenberg, deals with the dismissal of Mr Connor. Honourable senators will recall that what had happened was that Mr Connor was continuing to be in communication with Mr Khemlani after he should have stopped being in communication with Mr Khemlani. Freudenberg writes: . . . these things had become plain: Connor had not complied with Whitlam's repeated and insistent requests, rising to demands, for all relevant information; he had obviously failed to inform Khemlani that his authority to raise a loan had been revoked; his public denial could not be sustained; and, most important of all; he had let Whitlam make a statement, on record in Hansard, which was untrue. Freudenberg goes on to quote Mr Whitlam's statement of 14 October in which he said: I wish to make it absolutely clear that the reason for my decision rests solely and wholly on the matter of the answer I was led to give last Thursday. It is a precise, clearly defined issue. I have made it clear throughout the life of this Government that there is the one standard which, once departed from, must carry the heaviest penalty. It is a principle on which the integrity of Parliament itself depends. There was, I believe, a departure caused, from that principle. The principle and my insistence upon it was made amply clear, tragically clear, only three months ago in the case of the honourable member for Lalor. That is, Cairns. The statement continues: In that case and in this, there was and is, no reflection whatsoever on the personal integrity of the Minister involved. The error of judgment in both cases was the same; the consequences of that error of judgment, the same. But let me emphasize, those consequences spring not from misconduct, but from standards in relation to a narrow, precise but fundamentally important principle which this Government and I as head of this Government must insist upon. That is what Mr Whitlam said. Compare that with what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said when he came to the defence of Senator Tate-`He is a man of integrity'. That is not relevant. That is not being dealt with in any way. Mr Hawke said: I am totally satisfied that Senator Tate has not acted in bad faith. That is not relevant. He went on to say that he could not believe that there was any question of Senator Tate's integrity. That is not relevant. It is not the question. It is a question not of whether Senator Tate acted in bad faith but of whether he deliberately misled the Senate. It is not a question of whether he is a nice bloke, whether we are sorry for him, whether we have some sympathy for him or whether we could all fall into the same trap. It is a question of whether he deliberately misled the Senate. On his own admission and on the papers here he deliberately misled the Senate, not once, but twice. He should have resigned. He should have tendered his resignation. It may be that the Prime Minister, the way he is going at present, might not have accepted it, but Senator Tate should have tendered his resignation. Even Mr Brown resigned. Mr Brown claimed that he did not mislead Parliament deliberately. I cannot find very quickly Mr Brown's words. In any event, Mr Brown claimed that he had misled the Parliament but did not mean to do so. But he still resigned. I say that Senator Tate, with the brief in front of him, deliberately misled the Senate, and that if the former Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam, was still here he would have sacked the Minister. Senator Tate's failure to resign leaves his reputation and his integrity as a Minister in tatters and brings into question the whole concept of ministerial responsibility under this Government. I feel sorry for him, but he will have to live with it. He will have to live with his own conscience if he does not take the honourable course and resign. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(4.11) —I am very pleased to hear that Senator Lewis is reading a book called A Certain Grandeur. I commend it. It is probably being remaindered now, but it is a very good book for somebody such as Senator Lewis to read, because if there is one thing that we can say about this motion it is that there is not a whiff of a sense of grandeur about it. It is a petty, grubby exercise by an opposition party which, as its President said quite recently, was not fit to govern at the last election and it is still not fit to govern. Today, when there are big issues confronting this country, it comes in here with this silly little exercise. I remind Senator Lewis that he is not prosecuting drunks in the Warrnambool police courts with this sort of motion. It is not sufficient for him to come in here and say, `My rah rah boys think Senator Tate misled the Parliament', and for Senator Chaney to interject, `Yes, he misled the Parliament'. Peter Reith, for goodness sake, filed a statutory declaration saying that the Minister misled the Parliament. I would think what Peter Reith thinks about this issue would be very persuasive evidence before an impartial tribunal! Who in this Parliament had heard of Peter Reith before this statutory declaration was filed? I understand he is the shadow Attorney-General, for goodness sake. Who has ever heard of him and who ever will, apart from through his statutory declaration? The structure of Senator Lewis's speech-and I congratulate him; it had a structure-began by his setting out of Senator Tate's qualifications. They are very good qualifications, excellent qualifications. Senator Lewis was mesmerised by them and devoted a lot of time to Senator Tate's qualifications. He went on, with respect-and I do not mean this in any personal sense-to reveal his own lack of qualifications in prosecuting this case which he is trying to put. He finished his speech with some recitation of high authority from the oracles of the past-various Prime Ministers of Labor persuasion, as I recall. Senator Chaney —Does your Government not accept that telling the truth in Parliament is a requirement? Senator BUTTON —Yes, and on television, such as last night. Senator Chaney —Do you accept that? Senator BUTTON —Yes, we accept that, and that Leaders of the Opposition in the Senate should not mislead the people of Australia on television, as the honourable senator did last night. Senator Chaney —Don't talk nonsense. Senator BUTTON —It is exactly the same sort of quibble-like little issue, Senator. The issue is contained in page 2981 of the Hansard of 14 December 1987. Senator Lewis can bring in photocopied documents and brandish them around or do what he likes, but the issue is contained in that page of the Hansard. Senator Tate was asked three questions-- Senator Archer —And he lied twice. Senator BUTTON —Senator Archer's opinion is always useful in these matters. Senator Tate was asked three questions and he said: . . . the answer to each of them is no. If I have any criticism of Senator Tate, I would think that that is all the answer the question deserved-no, no, no. It is not alleged by Senator Lewis for a moment that `no, no, no' is a wrong answer. He floated some suspicions about what the Australian Federal Police might think of Dr Ho, or something like that, but it is not alleged by Senator Lewis that `no, no, no' is not a correct answer. Senator Tate went on to say: . . . I think the Senate deserves a fuller answer. If we follow down the first column of the Hansard of that day we see that Senator Tate sets out in smaller print the answer which he gave, quoting directly, he says, from advice. At the end of that quotation he said: That is the end of the advice to me on 14 September. Senator Walters —And it wasn't. Senator BUTTON —Senator, get out the Hansard and look at it. Senator Chaney —I've got it in front of me. Senator BUTTON —I am talking to Senator Walters. I know the honourable senator has to supplement her intellect at every possible time, but I am referring to Senator Walters at the moment. He went on to say: On 30 November the Federal Police provided me with further advice following allegations in Parliament on 27 October . . . In the second column of that page of the Hansard he dealt with the issues which the Federal Police had advised him were matters which were confidential and should not be mentioned in the Parliament. I think that is a very important principle for a Minister to follow. It is very important that he should do that. Senator Chaney —Why didn't he tell the Senate that? It is a simple thing he could have done. Senator BUTTON —Senator Tate will be-- Senator Chaney —Instead he said, `That is all my advice'. Senator BUTTON —No, the honourable senator is misreading it already. `That is the end of the advice to me' is the end of the advice which is quoted in smaller print. He went on to put the thing in chronological perspective, which relates to later advice on 30 November and the advice of 14 September which was given to him in confidence. He was saying, `That is the end of my brief. I also want to tell you, in the interests of doing all I can in respect of revealing information to the Parliament, that the matter of Dr Ho's relationship with Federal Hotels Ltd and so on has been raised'. In that second column on page 2981 he says as much as he can, having consulted with the Federal Police about what it thinks is appropriate and what is appropriately confidential. The next bit which Senator Lewis takes exception to-and I concede it is an important bit-is when Senator Tambling asks a supplementary question and asks Senator Tate to table the AFP reports on Federal Hotels and Senator Tate says, `No, I will not table those reports'. I believe that to be a totally appropriate answer. Senator Tate said: I have given a very full answer, as was contained in my brief- that is the answer which is given in smaller print in the first column on page 2981 and the supplement which he gave in relation to the confidential matters- which is directly, and without any modification or deletion by me, what the AFP presented to me on 14 September and 30 November. Deletion by whom is the issue. Senator Lewis has tabled a document which shows- Senator Chaney —That is in the original brief. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. That is a deletion; it was not by him. Senator Chaney —It is deleted but at his discretion in answering the question. Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator wants to argue that point, it is a different point altogether. Senator Chaney —That is the point. Senator BUTTON —No, it is not the point. Senator Chaney —He chose not to read those paragraphs. Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator wants to argue the question of whose discretion it was, the Federal Police advised Senator Tate not to provide certain information, and that was in its discretion. Senator Tambling —Why didn't he say it? Senator BUTTON —One could go on at Question Time forever elaborating on why particular things are said and why particular things are not, but it comes back to the simple point that Senator Tate, I believe, acted in accordance with his brief and gave an answer. Subsequent allegations were made about this and, as a result, Senator Tate, consistent with the whole tone of this question, which he could have answered by saying, `No, no, no'-an appropriate answer for this Opposition-went on to say, `I will try to help further with this issue'. As a result of that he gave the information which is contained in those two columns and then, as I say, totally consistent-- Senator Lewis —You were not defending drunks in Melbourne, that's for sure. Senator BUTTON —The problem is that this matter degenerates into a matter of semantics. The honourable senator says that it is not a semantic matter; it is a matter of substance. Of course it is a matter of semantics. Senator Lewis —Rubbish. It is not semantics at all. He was not prepared to reveal it until the freedom of information (FOI) application came along; then he knew he was in trouble. Senator BUTTON —What Senator Tate has said in the subsequent publication is that he regrets the terminology which he used. But that does not amount, in any sense, to an admission of misleading Parliament, in spite of the statutory declarations of Peter Reith-who is Peter Reith?-and in spite of these sorts of documents which Senator Lewis has thrown around. It is really as simple as that. If those opposite want to make a case of misleading the Parliament they have got to make one and no amount of rhetoric, statutory declarations or FOI documents will help them unless they add up to making a case that a Minister misled Parliament. Senator Chaney —He did, on the face of the documents. Senator BUTTON —It is no good keeping on asserting it unless the honourable senator can establish it. Senator Stone —Come on! Senator BUTTON —`Come on', says Senator Stone, who has been here about a fortnight and knows all about these things. Those opposite have to establish it and they are nowhere near establishing it. In this particular case I really think they have taken advantage of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate). I am annoyed with Senator Tate. I suggest that in future he just answer questions yes or no. That will give those opposite plenty of time to think about it and they can work out those answers over time until the next Question Time, and so on. I do not want to delay the Senate. This is the first sitting day of the Parliament. The Opposition, with its brilliant tactical skills, has taken the opportunity to abort Question Time on a matter which is trivial, which outside, in the community, will be seen as trivial and which will be seen as trivial in the Liberal Party of Australia, by the heirs apparent to the Liberal Party leadership here. They will see it as a trivial issue and they will be concerned that this Opposition on the first day of Parliament resorts to this smutty little grab-bag motion which is really unestablishable and meaningless. Senator Walters —That is just about your standards. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator has got to live in the kitchen here. In my view she should have stayed in it. But once she is here, she has got to live in the kitchen. I am prepared to do that. Senator Stone —That is an interesting remark from a government which is so devoted to the principle of equal opportunity. Senator BUTTON —All Senator Stone says is, `Tut, tut, tut'. The honourable senator will be able to quote that back. Senator Stone is chiding me about the remark I just made to Senator Walters. Senator Stone comes here as a confessed conservative, a confessed reactionary. The only happy day he has in the year is when daylight saving ends and he can actually turn the clock back, but on other issues to chide me about that sort of thing is just absolutely ludicrous because Senator Walters understood what I was talking about even if Senator Stone did not. Senator Lewis —In daylight saving you turn the clock forward. You cannot even get that right. Senator BUTTON —It is perhaps the beginning. It does not matter. The point is still important. Senator Puplick —It is a very sorry end to the standards that you have professed. Senator BUTTON —If we can stop the pompous interjections on the other side of the House, which is another disease which this Opposition is afflicted with, perhaps we can get on with the business of the Senate. I have nothing further to add on this matter. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(4.25) —This is a censure motion about Senator Michael Tate, a man from whom we expect so much more. His qualifications and experience have been well outlined. They have been put before us. With those qualifications and experiences he is a man from whom we expect a lot. He is a man who has demonstrated high principles, honesty and morals. But the pristine character of Senator Tate has been damaged and flawed by his deliberate actions that took place in this chamber on 14 December. But it is not just Senator Tate that we are talking about. A minute ago Senator Button was saying that the issue was being trivialised. It is not a trivial matter when we are talking about censuring the Justice Minister of the country, one of the highest law officers that we have. He has a very special ministerial role with very special responsibilities demanding special integrity. Obviously, Senator Tate was appointed because he was seen to have those qualifications. But the 14 December has meant that the community can no longer ably and confidently rely on the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or the Justice Minister to tell the truth and the whole truth. He has got to be accountable for the day to day organisation and administration of the law departments. They are important, prestigious government organisations. Also in Senator Tate's kitbag of ministerial responsibility is a particular responsibility for the residents of Christmas Island and this particular issue has relevance to Christmas Island. How can people rely on a Justice Minister who is responsible for criminal proceedings to the higher courts when they are to be prosecuted? History is often a very good teacher. Let us look back, firstly, to the seventeenth century to a couple of quotes from William Penn. He stated: . . . governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Secondly, he stated: If men be good, government cannot be bad. In the nineteenth century, Henry Clay said: Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people. Perhaps a little bit more up to date and a little bit more relevant, speaking on justice, is the quote made by Lord Justice Ackner, who stated: Convenience and justice are often not on speaking terms. Very obviously on 14 December convenience and justice were not on speaking terms because they did not line up. If we look at the list of failed Ministers of the Hawke regime-there has now been a number of them-it points up the weaknesses in the ministerial control of the Hawke Government. Uren and Gietzelt have now joined the geriatric faction of the Labor Party of Australia; Grimes and Hurford have opted out and taken lucrative diplomatic postings; Cohen is playing the domino game and has been dumped ingloriously. Under the pretext of `It's time to go' what were Ryan and Young doing? They were chickening out before the Titanic sank. I am sure that in the next few months in the Estimates committees and in the debates in this Parliament we will see a number of their mistakes become apparent. They have, very obviously, contributed to the loss of status of the Hawke Government. But what disappoints me more with Mr Hawke is that he has obviously lost control of his Ministry and of where he is going, even on this particular issue. Today in a question in the House of Representatives Mr Hawke was asked whether he was fully au fait with the actions of Senator Tate. He said: Senator Tate did not give incorrect information to the Parliament . . . Senator Tate was required for reasons of confidentiality to summarise part of that advice. If we look through the full statement made by Mr Hawke, it shows that he has not got a grasp on what happened on 14 December or on 3 February. In two questions today Mr Howard asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) whether he had read the documents made available by Senator Tate to his opposite number on the front bench, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). What was Hawke's reply? It was, `Madam Speaker, I haven't seen the document'. The document has been in front of him, particularly in this month of February, because of the controversy it has created. Mr Brown, the other failed ministerial member of the Australian Labor Party, pulled out late last year in circumstances which were very questionable. What did he say when he claimed that he had misled the Parliament in good faith? He said that `inadvertently, honestly, innocently, technically' he misled it. But he resigned. Senator Tate untruthfully misled this Parliament. Let us look at some of the facts. Let us look carefully at the Hansard of 14 December. Senator Tate, in answering the three questions I first put to him, said: The question asked was in three parts and the answer to each of them is no. I am not yet convinced with regard to the second question. I have read the files, the Hansard and the Minister's Press statements. I will read that second question: Have the Australian Federal Police ever had reservations about Dr Ho's involvement with Federal Hotels? From reading everything the Minister summarised in his answer, let alone the quote from the Australian Federal Police (AFP), I am not yet convinced that that question has been answered. It is even more confusing to look further down the Hansard report where the Minister says: I understand that on 14 May 1987 his fellow directors of Federal Hotels Ltd voted Dr Ho off the board. At the time of AFP advice on 14 September, Dr Ho had resigned as a director . . . What is the difference between the dates? When did Dr Ho resign and when was this pulled up? What is the sin of Senator Tate in this instance? I will quote directly from him. After reading the AFP advice, he says: That is the end of the advice to me on 14 September. Further down, where Senator Tate analysed more of the information, he said: . . . and without any modification or deletion by me . . . I am quoting what the Minister said. That is totally untrue. The Minister made an apology to me and the Senate in a Press release on 3 February. I believe that that was a very weak and ineffectual answer. He was hiding behind the skirts of the Australian Federal Police. It leads me to wonder further, because I cannot get satisfaction on these answers, what else is being covered up? There have been allegations by people in the House of Representatives with regard to the casino on Christmas Island. Freedom of information legislation has allowed information to come through on links between Federal Hotels Ltd, Ansett and the Prime Minister. Let me quote a couple of points provided through freedom of information, from a memo between departmental officers: The operator (Federal Hotels) is run by a friend of P.M.-Mr Haddad. Further down it is stated: I have no problem with `entry/exit' interviews with Haddad provided they are just that-interviews. In the same document, two paragraphs apart, there is a link between Federal Hotels and the PM. Senator Teague —Is that an FOI document? Senator TAMBLING —Yes. Senator Teague —He means the Prime Minister? Senator TAMBLING —I can only presume that is so if this matter is between government policemen. The Press coverage at the time indicated a supposed link between Federal Hotels and Ansett International. It was reported in the Daily Commercial News of 25 January that Federal Hotels purchased the operation of the Ansett International Hotel in Perth. And so it goes on. Allegations with regard to these issues have been made in the other place. There is a link between a number of people. Are they in any way included in the two paragraphs that have been withheld? Are there any implications? I am afraid that my suspicion is aroused because of the way the document has been put together. I do not believe that question 2 of 14 December has been answered. I have read the statutory declaration by the shadow Attorney-General, who has read those two paragraphs. That was the document tabled by Senator Lewis. I will read point 8 of that statutory declaration. Mr Reith says: I responded that the fact that the Minister had felt a need to ring the Australian Federal Police only confirmed in my mind that the alternative interpretation that I had put to the Minister was obviously open on any reasonable reading of the document. After the Minister had spoken to Mr Reith, he had to discuss the matter again with the Australian Federal Police. Point 9 of Mr Reith's statutory declaration is very damning: In my view, the Minister has misled the Senate. Why should not the two paragraphs have been made public? It is quite obvious that Mr Haddad of Federal Hotels some time ago distributed a document to most members of parliament. I will quote from that document written after the matter first came up: Federal Hotels understands that it is not the usual practice for a Government to table reports of police investigations but it has not the slightest objection to the tabling of the report on the investigation of the company its directors and its operations by the Australian Federal Police. So what is being hidden? What were the Press reactions in February? Very often they reflect the expectations and the standards expected of a Minister. Let me read some of them: `Tate admits answer on casino was wrong'. `Tate ``misled Parliament twice'' on casino'. `Tate faces sacking call over casino document'. `Tate refuses to release police advice on casino'. `Minister ``misled the House on the casino'' '. `Tate sorry for choice of words'. I do not believe that a Minister can hide behind saying that it was a choice of words. It is not good enough. We are talking about Senator Michael Tate, not Jim Hacker. Let me close with a quote from the scripts of Yes Minister which best sums up this whole situation. Hacker said: A good political speech is not one in which you can prove that the man is telling the truth-it is one where no one else can prove he is lying. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.38) —I will not keep the Senate long. We are discussing a proposed censure motion of Senator Tate with regard to an answer given to the Senate on 14 December. On reading the answer given by Senator Tate, if one were trying to take an objective view, one would be struck by two things. First, one wonders why he did not stop at no. Possibly he is also now wondering why he did not stop at no. I hope the Senate would not wish Ministers to provide us with less than full answers. In reviewing, as I have done, the answers Senator Tate has given since he became a Minister, compared with the answers given by many other Ministers, one is struck by the fact that Senator Tate's answers, by and large, give information. One could think of some other Ministers-and I am thinking of one in particular from the previous Ministry-who are very adept at spending enormous amounts of time in giving no information. Senator Messner is looking quizzical, but he was involved directly as shadow Minister, so he can probably work out who the Minister was. It is important, when one looks at these items, to try to take a balanced view with regard to the Minister who is under attack about a particular answer. I hope that, regardless of what happens as a result of this censure motion, Senator Tate will not take it that the best way to survive as a Minister during Question Time is to give no information at all because that way you cannot get into trouble. I believe that could be the natural type of inclination one would have as a result of this particular exercise. That said, if one goes on to look at the answer given by Senator Tate and the subsequent material that he has tabled today, one sees that a considerable amount of material has been provided in answer to the question that Senator Tambling asked. Senator Tambling made the point that he considers that some of those answers may not be correct, and that is a perfectly reasonable proposition for a member of the Opposition to put. I imagine that, from time to time, this issue will be joined yet again as to whether the answers are correct, not as to whether they are truthful or untruthful. That is a matter of political debate and requires an estimate of the information that has been provided. I do not wish to go into that particular item and, as I understand it, the Opposition's case does not hinge on the correctness or otherwise of the answers given. The point hinges, as I understand the case, on the last answers Senator Tate gave. I must admit, on reading those answers, that Senator Tate, up to that point, had given a nice, fair answer and then he stepped right into it. He later apologised if, in terms of his answer, he gave a misrepresentation or in any way gave the Senate to understand something other than what he was intending when he said: I will not table those reports. I have given a very full answer, as was contained in my brief, which is directly, and without any modification or deletions by me, what the AFP presented to me on 14 September and 30 November. At first blush, one would think that that could not be more directly opposed to what Senator Tate has now told the Senate is the case. Senator Button has made some glosses on that and, not being a lawyer, I think that what he said might stand up in court. It would be up to the judge to decide. The substance of what Senator Button said is that modifications and deletions were the responsibility of the AFP, or at least were urged by the AFP and, in a sense, Senator Tate was saying that the answers he gave were the full answers without any modifications, other than those which the AFP urged on him. If he had said that, there would not have been any problem, but he did not say that and that is the difficulty. Senator Tate essentially said that the deletions and modifications presented were deletions that he made. Despite the fact that the deletions were urged by the AFP and accepted, quite rightly, by Senator Tate in a responsible manner it is fair to say that the deletions were technically made by the Minister, not by the AFP. It is probably at that point that I finally reached a decision with regard to all of the items. Other items which have certainly influenced me in recent times in various committee hearings in which I have been involved and which have given me reason to pause are the problems of crime in this country and the other problems with which Senator Tate has been dealing, as the responsible Minister. Quite frankly, they are far more important than the matter with which the Senate is dealing today. These, the problems of crime, go to the guts of our community. Senator Lewis spoke to us about the motion he intended to move. We were not able to respond to his inquiries prior to debate on the motion because, essentially, the debate came forward sooner than the Australian Democrats realised it would. We were under the impression that the matter would have been dealt with after Question Time and, hence, we have not been able to respond to a reasonable inquiry from Senator Lewis. I apologise that we were not able to do so. The motion calls on the Senate to take note of the answer given by the Minister for Justice to a question asked by Senator Jones and to censure the Minister for knowingly misleading the Senate in an answer to a question without notice asked by Senator Tambling on 14 December; and it calls on the Minister for Justice to resign. The Australian Democrats have two problems in accepting the motion. One problem is-and this is another matter for judgment-whether or not Senator Tate knowingly misled the Senate. On balance, and from our discussions, we do not think that Senator Tate knowingly misled the Senate although he undoubtedly did so or made statements to the Senate that the Senate took to be other than what Senator Tate presumably knew. The Australian Democrats have difficulty in accepting the part of the motion that claims Senator Tate knowingly misled the Senate. The Australian Democrats have made that decision on the balance of what we know Senator Tate to be and on how he has operated in the Senate and on the basis of the type of answers he has given. Unlike some other Ministers, he has been willing to give answers that are as full as one could ask for and require. In many ways his answers have provided a model for the answers that one would hope all Ministers would give to questions senators ask at Question Time or to questions they have put on notice. Honourable senators will be aware that I have put down a notice of motion today on the latter area. The problem the Australian Democrats have with the third part of the motion is that, having decided that we do not believe that the Minister for Justice knowingly misled the Senate, we would not wish to call on him to resign. We would have been happier if the Minister had given fuller recognition in his statement of the fact that the words he used would almost inevitably have meant that the Senate would take a view other than what he knew the case to be. I again make the qualification that there is a great deal of difference between the hard words as they appear on paper and in the answers that are given orally across the chamber. Every senator has had the experience on reading Hansard of wondering whether he or she has said what is recorded in Hansard. Generally, the Hansard staff have managed to take out many of the sentence constructions that come across in the oral presentation of a case which would not necessarily come across if they appeared in black and white. On the basis of those problems-I again apologise to Senator Lewis that we were not able to get back to him before because I understand that he was willing to make adjustments with regard to any problems we had-we are not able to support the motion to censure Senator Tate. We do not think he has knowingly misled the Senate and, hence, we do not believe he has a case to answer. Therefore, we do not believe he should resign. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.49) —In answering the censure motion against me I shall draw on much of the material I made available to the Senate during Question Time. I do not think that in many instances I can go far beyond that material. I need to remind the Senate of the situation I was in. I was presented with a brief by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on 14 September. It did not relate to any impending events as far as I know. It was one of those matters that come across my desk. I read it and thought it was not something that had been prepared for Question Time. It was not one of those parliamentary question briefs that one receives. It was simply a brief from the Office of the Commissioner of Police. Then on 30 November I received a further memorandum, or brief, as we have deigned to call it, from the Office of the Commissioner of Police, headed `Confidential'. The `issue' was: The possibility that an attempt will be made to have the AFP report on its investigation of Federal Hotels Ltd tabled in Parliament. I tabled this document in Question Time. It states: Background You were briefed on the AFP's investigation and its findings on 14 September 1987. A copy is attached. We have received advice from a representative of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (DASETT) that their Minister has been briefed on the possibility that the Australian Democrats may call for the AFP report on this matter to be tabled in Parliament. This follows a recent newspaper article quoting Mr K. J. Aldred, MP, who made allegations in Parliament on 27 October 1987 regarding a Director of Federal Hotels Ltd and his association with persons and companies of alleged ill-repute. As a result of these allegations the AFP re-interviewed a number of Federal Hotel Directors. These enquiries have not, however altered the findings of the original report. Therefore, the conclusion of the AFP about the suitability and propriety of Federal Hotels to hold the casino licence at Christmas Island was not changed. That had been, on 14 September in the brief to me, to this effect: . . . the inquiry did not reveal any matter- which, of course, involves all investigations into directors and major shareholders and persons associated with Federal Hotels- which would cause the AFP to recommend against the company being granted a casino licence. The memorandum of 30 November went on: DASETT has advised its Minister that the question of whether the report should be tabled is a matter for you to determine- that is, it was for me- The AFP believes that the report should not be tabled. It is a confidential police report which makes observations about persons and could be open to misinterpretation by the press and public. RECOMMENDATION That you note the preceding information. It is signed P. J. Lamb, Assistant Commissioner (Investigations). Having been presented with that, and therefore being somewhat on notice that a question might be coming up, I wondered what I would reply to a reasonably framed question. Clearly, I was being advised that I should regard the police report as confidential. So I wrote as a notation on the side column: Urgent that I have more for parliamentary reply. Surely most of the memo of 14 September could be used. I signed it `M. Tate, 7 December'-which apparently must have been the date that I saw it. My intention at all times was to try to convey to the chamber, if I was asked a question, as much as was possible. It was on that basis that Chief Superintendent Whiddett, in response to my side notation dated by me on 7 December, came to see me on 10 December with the intention of providing me with the fullest possible answer for the Senate consistent with the confidentiality which they recommended in relation to the AFP report, and also to advise me that since they had briefed me on 14 September and 30 November, they were now aware that Dr Ho was no longer a shareholder at all in Federal Hotels or in TAL Holdings. That being the case, I knew that if I had simply read the situation as at the 14 September brief, which dealt with Dr Ho's shareholding then, I would not have been giving the full, up-to-date, complete picture that should have been given of Dr Ho's relationship with TAL Holdings and Federal Hotels. I recall Chief Superintendent Whiddett quite explicitly saying that in relation to the brief of 14 September, which I wanted to convey to the Senate, or as much of it as possible, although the first four paragraphs were suitable and conveyed the full result of the investigation of the propriety and suitability of Federal Hotels to hold the casino licence on Christmas Island, the next two paragraphs, which were couched by way of advice to me about Dr Ho's relationship with Federal Hotels, ought not to be conveyed to the Senate as they were because, as he put it-and unfortunately in having to say this I am conveying in some way what was in those paragraphs-the allegations were unfounded, and it would be `quite improper'-those were his words-to use those paragraphs in the Senate chamber by way of reply. I was dissatisfied. I felt I could not stop after those first four paragraphs. Therefore, Chief Superintendent Whiddett and my Senior Private Secretary, Mr Daryl Smeaton, on my instructions, got together to try to find a way to precis as much of those final two paragraphs as was possible to convey information to the Senate without conveying anything to do with unfounded allegations. It was apparently with this suggested form of words, on pieces of paper that I have now tabled, that I came into the chamber, together with the brief of 14 September and the brief, which we are now calling it, of 30 November. I gave an answer, probably near the end of Question Time, to Senator Tambling. He asked a question in three parts and I jotted them down as quickly as I could. From my reading of the brief of 14 September and 30 November, and drawing on that oral briefing, I felt that I could answer `No, no, no' in relation to those three questions. Senator Button and Senator Macklin are quite right: I think I should have sat down. But we all know that if a Minister says `No, no, no', it is regarded as rather half-smart, and it does not convey information. So I read the four paragraphs in the brief of 14 September and, quite frankly, I think I misled myself. Perhaps I should read the last paragraph: On the basis of information available, the inquiry did not reveal any matter which would cause the AFP to recommend against the company being granted a casino licence. Then there follows just a counsel of prudence: Should the company's application proceed, however, and persons not currently connected with the application become directly involved in the casino establishment, the AFP would need to be advised so that this advice can be reviewed. I then said: That is the end of the advice to me on 14 September. Senator Chaney —Are you saying you were reading from this document, which you tabled today? Senator TATE —Of 14 September. Senator Chaney —Were you reading from the 14 September document or the 8 December document? Senator TATE —At that time, in the Senate chamber, I cannot recall. Senator Chaney —At Question Time. Senator TATE —I cannot recall. But the four paragraphs finish in this way: . . . the AFP would need to be advised so that this advice can be reviewed. That was the end of the advice to me on 14 September. Clearly, what happened was that on 30 November the Federal Police provided me with further information. I therefore followed that up and gave it to the Senate chamber in the form of words advised to me by Chief Superintendent Whiddett and Mr Smeaton-although I take full responsibility, of course, for putting it in that form of words in the Senate. In the next paragraph, to put this matter into chronological perspective a little further, I think they are my words, but I am not sure-it may be in the back of the honourable senator's mind-I then went on to give some sequence of events in relation to Dr Ho's holdings in TAL Holdings, which was the parent company of Federal Hotels. I then made the final statement: I was advised late last week that Dr Ho has since sold all his shares and no longer holds any interest in Tal Holdings or Federal Hotels. So it was in relation to trying to convey to the Senate as much as possible by way of factual information that I adopted those words and did not quote verbatim from the two paragraphs remaining in the brief of 14 September. Then, when Senator Tambling asked whether I, as Minister, would table the AFP report on Federal Hotels, I said: No, I will not table those reports. I have given a very full answer, as was contained in my brief, which is directly, and without any modification or deletion by me, what the AFP presented to me on 14 September and 30 November. At the first opportunity following that answer at Question Time I apologised for those words because quite clearly they conveyed the impression that I had quoted every word from every part of the briefs of 14 September and 30 November. That choice of words was unfortunate-- Senator Archer —Oh! Senator TATE —The honourable senator can scoff, but it was Question Time and I was trying to convey as much information as possible. I had in my mind the fact that I had drawn on those briefs of 14 September and 30 November and the oral briefing of 10 December, and I wanted to convey as much as possible to the Senate out of those briefs. I believe that I did not try to mislead the Senate by not conveying anything which would have gone against those short answers, no, no and no, by way of response to Senator Tambling's questions in the first instance. I have apologised to the Senate for my use of those words, and I made that apology as soon as I became aware of their significance. Senator Lewis suggested that I had simply put out a Press statement because, although I had had many opportunities, I had to be drawn into making a public apology. To be absolutely honest, I thought no more about my answer between 14 December and I think the evening of 2 February when Mike Steketee, of the Sydney Morning Herald, contacted my office and then contacted me personally that same evening. I had had no reason to think that anything was untoward in the answer. It just had not occurred to me. I certainly had not tried to cover up in the interim period, and certainly had not tried to cover up anything in light of a freedom of information (FOI) request. I think the FOI request came to my office first and I conveyed it to the AFP some time in mid-December, following which I gave it no more thought. That was never a matter of concern to me. Indeed, it is interesting that in relation to FOI requests and quite independently of the decision that I had made on advice from the AFP, the AFP, using the criteria laid down by the Freedom of Information Act, itself came to the conclusion that those two paragraphs should be deleted. So, as I say, I had no thought in my mind between 14 December and 2 February that anything was gravely amiss in the answer that I had given. Yet I now see that those words did convey the wrong impression that I had quoted verbatim every jot and tittle of that particular brief of 14 September when in fact what I had done, accepting the advice of the AFP, was to give a precis which to my mind was a substitute for those two paragraphs of the brief of 14 September. But it was a substitute and not in any way a modification which led to the wrong impression being given to Senator Tambling as to the relationship between Dr Ho and Federal Hotels so far as it bore on the propriety of Federal Hotels as a potential licence holder for the casino on Christmas Island. There was nothing in the summary I offered to the Senate which covered up or tried to hide or mislead the chamber in any way about the information that was given to me by the AFP in those two paragraphs of the brief of 14 September as supplemented by the brief of 30 November and the oral advice from Chief Superintendent Whiddett on 10 December. I made a few notes as honourable senators spoke, but I think I have covered most of the matters raised. I reiterate that I find myself in a difficult position in that the two paragraphs I did make available to Mr Peter Reith on a confidential basis have apparently been read by him in a way which has led him to the conclusion that I misled the Senate as to whether the Federal Police had reservations about Dr Ho's relationship with Federal Hotels insofar as that would affect the propriety and capacity of Federal Hotels to be the licence holder for the casino on Christmas Island. I assure the Senate that it would be comforting for me to release those two paragraphs but, as I say, I did not originally think they ought to be released, and the AFP's own independent judgment in relation to the FOI request has more or less confirmed that position. My releasing the two paragraphs just because I am in some political difficulty would undermine not only my argument but also the whole stance of a Minister who at times receives confidential information which he ought not make available publicly for fear of damaging the reputation of those against whom allegations of impropriety are made but which are found not to have any substance. It is clear I do not think I should make these paragraphs available simply for my own political interests. I do apologise, as I say-I do not know whether I can do any more-to the Senate for that choice of words. I have tried to explain how it came about that I believed I had given to the Senate as full and as substantial a factual account of what was available to me on the day that I rose to give the answer as it was possible to give without making those confidential paragraphs available. That is what I meant to say, what I meant to convey, and insofar as my words conveyed a different impression I do apologise. Although it was said that I will have to live with my conscience because I have misled the Senate, I am quite confident in my own mind that I did not mislead the Senate as to the questions raised by Senator Tambling. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.08) —I did not intend to speak in this debate but I now do so because of the contribution of Senator Button, the Leader of the Government in this place, which manifestly failed to deal with the matters raised by the Opposition. Whereas Senator Tate has tried to answer the charges against him, we heard from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nothing but bluster. I believe an attempt to confuse the argument is a mark of a lawyer who knows that he has a very poor case. There is a good deal of common ground in this debate and I note that Senator Tate on at least four occasions has apologised for the fact that the words he used conveyed an impression to other people which he apparently did not intend. So even the Minister who is under attack has found it necessary both outside this place and in the chamber to proffer an apology. Senator Michael Macklin, who spoke on behalf of the Australian Democrats, indicated that his conclusion was that Senator Tate had indeed misled the Senate, and that his difference of opinion with the Opposition in putting forward this motion was that he did not accept that the Minister had knowingly misled the Senate. My concern with the Government's response to this motion brought forward on our behalf by Senator Lewis is that nowhere in Senator Button's speech, that I can recall, was there an acknowledgment of a rule which all governments have accepted to this point-that there is an obligation upon Ministers not to mislead this or indeed the other chamber. That obligation applies even in circumstances where the Minister, as Minister Tate has claimed to be, is under an honest misapprehension. Senator Tate has put the view that for various reasons-the complexities that involved his briefing and reading and seeking further information-he felt that what he was saying would not mislead the Senate. The reality is that on a plain reading of the words the Senate in a material particular was misled. It is not critical to the judgment which is made by the Opposition that the misleading of the Parliament must be knowing. Senator Austin Lewis, when he brought forward this debate-- Senator Collins —Careful. Senator CHANEY —I will deal with it a little further, Senator Collins, because I understand the risks to all of us in this point. Let me remind Senator Collins of what Senator Lewis reminded the Senator of in opening this debate; that was the plea from then Treasurer Cairns when he was in the position of having said that he had not signed a letter which it transpired he had signed. The eloquent plea from Dr Cairns, quoted by Senator Lewis, was in these terms: I answered the question in Parliament on June 4th, 1975, consistently with my recollection of these events. I answered the question as I did, believing that I spoke the truth. I do not think I need to quote any more than that, Mr President. The reality is that Dr Cairns was held by the Prime Minister of the day as not being able to continue in his important role in government, in his role as a Minister in the Whitlam Government, not because he had knowingly misled the House of Representatives but because he had, on his claim, innocently misled the House. There is a much more recent example of the standards which are imposed. The recent example is, of course, ex-Minister Brown. We can all recall that a matter of less than a couple of months ago we were debating the issue relating to ex-Minister Brown in this chamber. We all know that on the production of the documents which showed that Minister Brown's answer was inconsistent with documentary material it became evident that Minister Brown had to go. I know of no statement by the Government that Minister Brown had to go because he knowingly misled the Parliament. Indeed, we had ex-Minister Brown's categorical assurance that he believed that what he was saying to the Parliament was true. We have a lot of very silly debates, silly in the sense that there is never any possible sensible conclusion on questions of ministerial responsibility. One can poke fun at great length at Senator Gareth Evans, who posed when he was in opposition the most impossible standards of ministerial responsibility. The speeches are there for all of us to read. We have all sat and listened to him recant and impose a quite different standard when he is in government. It is possible to shift one's ground on those difficult questions-again, Senator Lewis dealt with this-which go to the precise responsibility of a Minister who is responsible for perhaps tens of thousands of public servants beavering away-some in the national interest, some not. The Minister is in some theoretical sense responsible for their errors and omissions. But quite clearly within our Parliament, as in the British Parliament, there is a limited requirement that a Minister accept the full responsibility for every act of his subordinates, when those acts are so often outside his knowledge and control. Whereas a Minister such as the then Foreign Affairs Minister in Great Britain might resign over a major blunder in his department-as I think Lord Carrington did-the generality of situation has been that Ministers who suffer mistakes made by their public servants which are not their direct responsibility and fault are given absolution by their Prime Minister, by their party and in the ultimate by the Parliament. What we have had is the preservation of one simple and very important rule. It is that we are entitled to require of people in this place that they give us the truth and that they do not mislead us. One of the most simple and most widely understood rules in parliamentary life and the Westminster system is that one goes if one misleads the Parliament. Is that not why Profumo went? It was not for what he did but for the fact that the Parliament was misled. We are engaging in a debate which, as Senator Button pointed out, involves a very unusual censure motion. Senator Lewis, on behalf of the Opposition, spent some time talking about the respected qualities of the Minister who is under attack today. In no sense do I resile from that catalogue of reasons why we think that the Minister has much to commend him. But that is not the point of this debate and Senator Tate, as that list of achievements indicates, is peculiarly able to understand the principle under which we are bringing this matter forward. An appeal was made to his conscience. I might vary that a bit. My appeal would be to his understanding of the constitutional principle which underpins the operation of this Parliament. I have been a Minister representing half a dozen Ministers in this place and I fully understand the sort of reservation that Senator Collins indicated when he half interjected when I talked about the weight of responsibility which is on a Minister. We all know that on occasions Ministers come into this place and say, `I am sorry, I have inadvertently misinformed this chamber. Here are the facts'. Nobody turns a hair. Nobody gets up and proposes a motion of censure; that is true. I do not have a specific recollection but I am sure that I had to correct something in my period as a Minister and I was not picked on for it. I am sure that my colleagues and Labor Ministers have been in the same situation. But that demonstrates what is so different about this case. What Senator Tate has told us rests on the fact that he was quoting from his brief. The simple charge against him does not relate to the complexities that are raised by the statutory declaration of Mr Peter Reith, the shadow Attorney-General; that really just touches on the issue of whether or not those missing paragraphs in some way indicate that the no, no, no answers or some other part of the answer should have been different. That is really at one edge of the case. The problem for the Minister at the moment is that on the face of the documents that he has given us and on the face of what is in Hansard there are two statements which are clearly wrong. The first it might have been argued could mean something else. But at the end of those four paragraphs which have been quoted by Senator Lewis, requoted by Senator Tate, the documents in which they appeared, produced and reproduced, what Senator Tate said on 14 December was, `That is the end of the advice to me'. On the face of the documents it is quite clear that there were several other paragraphs of advice. When Senator Tambling asked a supplementary question he got again what might be regarded as an overgenerous response. But Senator Tate went back to the point. He was not pressed on this point; he chose to make this gratuitous comment: I have given a very full answer, as was contained in my brief, which is directly, and without any modification or deletion by me, what the AFP presented to me on 14 September . . . That is clearly wrong, Mr President. There was a modification and deletion. It was done by the Minister for reasons that nobody in the Opposition is suggesting were not proper. What we are saying is improper was the Minister misrepresenting the fact of a deletion. A deletion did occur and if he had said that there were parts of the brief which he was not giving for reasons which go to character or investigation-one of those answers that a Minister has to give-no more would have been heard about this matter. I express concern that the Australian Democrats out of deference to and respect for Senator Tate and his willingness to try to provide proper answers-I share their appreciation of that-are letting a very important principle slip by because the reality is that we cannot work in this place unless that principle does apply. We are not saying to Senator Tate, `You must be so perfect as not to make mistakes'. We are not saying to Ministers, `You must be so all-seeing in your administration that you must be able to oversee every single public servant at every single moment'. But we are saying that Senator Tate has a duty to this chamber to tell the literal truth. There can be no failure-whether it is a wilful failure or a failure caused by inadvertence, error or tiredness-to do so. In Senator Tate's case I would have to say that it would not be caused by a hangover, as it might have been once or twice in my case. But the reality is that we are putting forward a motion based on what I regard as accepted constitutional principle for Australia, inherited from the United Kingdom-an inheritance which I believe is important to be maintained. In my view, however morally innocent Senator Tate might be-and this censure motion has not imputed any other sort of wrongdoing on the part of a Minister-I believe that the Opposition's case is utterly sound. The attempt by Senator Button to describe these things as semantics is rather contemptible. Truth or falsity can always be turned aside as being a matter of semantics. Of course it is a matter of words; it is a matter of what these words mean. It is quite clear that the words used by Senator Tate did not mean what they appeared to mean. In other words, they were not true. So I believe that whatever one thinks of Senator Tate, the reality is that he has breached the standards which are required of a Minister in this place. Therefore, I believe he warrants censure; indeed, I think that his proper course is to resign. Question put: That the motion (Senator Lewis's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Short, J. R.Chaney, F. M. Stone, J. O.Chapman, H. G. P. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Black, J. R. McLean, P. A.Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J.Burns, B. R. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Powell, J. F.Collins, R. L. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. E.Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. Evans, GarethCrichton-Browne, N. A. Jones, G. N.Patterson, K. C. L. Cooney, B.Sheil, G. Button, J. N. (Senator Reid did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Ryan.) Question so resolved in the negative. Senator COLLINS —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Is there any validity in recent claims by the Australian Wilderness Society that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd Coronation Hill joint venture has been operating illegally in the Kakadu conservation zone? Senator RICHARDSON —There are two issues to be resolved-work on the BHP leases and work outside them. In respect of the first issue, honourable senators will recall, in the last week or so, some considerable publicity by the Wilderness Society, whose members are occupying the site at Coronation Hill and are proceeding to halt all activity there. They have made a number of claims about the legality of the original leases. But on the basis of advice which is currently at hand, the Government does not accept the claims by the Wilderness Society as to the legality of the existing leases at Coronation Hill. However, to clarify the matter the Government will move immediately to issue an access authority under the Lands Acquisition Act to remove any doubt in anyone's mind as to the rights of BHP to continue activities at Coronation Hill. As I informed the Senate last year in response to a question from Senator Wood-I still call him Senator Wood-the BHP joint venture has undertaken some engineering and environmental studies outside the existing leases. These activities have centred on the proposed mine project area and are required to enable the completion of a feasibility study and a mine plan and, most importantly, the preparation of an environmental impact statement, which is being completed within the guidelines set down by my Department. Completion of these documents is essential if the Government is to make an informed decision on whether to allow the mine to proceed. Activities outside the existing leases have been undertaken with the knowledge and concurrence of the relevant Commonwealth and Northern Territory agencies. The Minister for Administrative Services will soon issue an access authority to cover further engineering and environmental studies outside the existing leases required to complete the mine plan and the environmental impact statement. It is also proposed to issue an access authority to approve some exploration drilling immediately adjacent to the existing leases to delineate the extent of the ore body. My Department, in consultation with the Supervising Scientist and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, has prepared strict environmental conditions which will be attached to those authorities. The Department of Administrative Services has sought an assurance from BHP that no work will be undertaken outside existing leases in the conservation zone until an appropriate authority incorporating strict environmental conditions has been issued. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. It follows from that asked previously of Senator Tate by my colleague Senator Stone concerning what has rapidly become known as the Young-Loosley cover-up. I refer the Minister to the sudden recollection on 4 February by the New South Wales Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Stephen Loosley-a recollection, by the way, totally contrary to his recollection of only two days previously-that he had received both the $10,000 cheque from Harris-Daishowa and the company's covering letter to Mr M. J. Young. I also refer the Minister to his own subsequent statement that Mr Young had thereby been totally exonerated from any wrongdoing in the matter. I ask the Minister: Firstly, on what advice did he base his statement; secondly, from whom was this advice received; thirdly, had he received any preliminary report from the Australian Federal Police; and, fourthly, if he had not received such a report, how could he have so categorically stated that Mr Young had been exonerated? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Short asks firstly how I could have made the comment that I regarded Mr Young as having been exonerated. Let me make a couple of points very clearly. It was on my own advice and on no one else's advice. In that period we acted quite properly in this matter. That is, we took a hands off attitude to any investigation and potential prosecution. It is general policy in running a relationship with the Electoral Commission that in matters that will go to possible court action we take a hands off attitude. The Electoral Commission is given a free hand to determine which matters it believes should be investigated by the Australian Federal Police and which matters should not be. This is not the first case relating to the Electoral Act recently that the Federal Police have had to investigate. I instance one other for the moment-the case of a false enrolment form by Mr Hinton, MLA in Queensland. Again, right throughout that procedure the ministry that I control has a hands off attitude. That is, it is up to the Electoral Commission to put any matter in the hands of the police and take it through to a conclusion without reference to the Minister. That is also true in this case. I have not sought-nor would I ever contemplate seeking-to direct the Electoral Commission or have any contact with the Electoral Commission other than the normal factual things about the timing of the matter and when the police report would be expected. Senator Short asked me how I could possibly clear Mr Young with the same grace, the same speed, as Senator Short and the rest of his colleagues rushed to find him guilty, screaming through a variety of Press releases, about which he knows well, to the effect that Mr Young was automatically guilty. My expertise in this area is not the best in Australia but it is by no means the worst. I sat on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform from 1983 to 1984. I chaired if from 1985 to 1987. As such, we investigated, introduced and recommended disclosure provisions. I was closely associated with the drawing up of the legislation. Any reading of the Electoral Act that Senator Short can come forward with-I note that he does not cite any section of the Act-that can implicate Mr Young I would be very interested to hear. The disclosure provisions are quite clear. The responsibility for disclosing donations over a certain sum lies with the party agent and no one else. In this case Mr Young was not the party agent. Mr Young passed on the donation with a letter which designated things. I will not go into the rights and wrongs of that because I am sure that at this stage we do not want to prejudge that case. We will await the police report. Mr Young had fulfilled any obligations. By my reading of the Electoral Act-I said that it was in my opinion that he was exonerated-he had breached no section of the Electoral Act because he was not a party agent. There was no requirement on him to take the matter any further. I would have been reluctant in most circumstances even to go as far as I did. But honourable senators will recall that at that time a Federal Minister was being accused of being guilty before the police report was in the hands of the Government, and before the Director of Public Prosecutions would have had a chance to consider it. So if Senator Short believes that I have been a little hasty, I was probably provoked by him and other members of the Liberal Party. Senator Short goes on to ask a more factual question, which would probably be of interest to us all. He asks whether I have received the Federal Police report. It will not come to me. The procedure will be, I think, that the police report will go to the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Mr Hughes. He in turn will consult with Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions. I think the final decision rests with Mr Temby, maybe in consultation with the Chief Electoral Commissioner. That process will go on without any political interference, without any knowledge to me. Eventually I will be informed of what they propose to do. I will then inform the Parliament. But there will be a hands off attitude to that procedure. That is the way it has been done in the past. That is the way it must be done in the future. I do not know for sure when the police report will be produced. I imagine that it will be towards the end of this week, but I cannot guarantee it. It is a matter for the Australian Federal Police. As soon as I am informed of that I will be happy to share that information with Senator Short as shadow Minister and the rest of the Parliament. Senator SHORT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer. Do I take it from his answer that he is assuming that the Harris-Daishowa letter of 11 June to Mr Young and the accompanying cheque for $10,000 were transmitted together from Mr Young to Mr Loosley? If that is what he is saying, could he advise the Senate what evidence he has to this effect? Senator ROBERT RAY —Before I go directly to that point I will correct a misapprehension that is around that the Federal Police are investigating, or were ever investigating, Mr Young. What the Federal Police were investigating was an allegation that a donation was not properly disclosed. It was not an investigation into Mr Young at all, let me make that quite clear; but that is the way it got the run in the media, possibly, but maybe not, prompted by members of the Opposition. That clearly is what also, if you like, gave it the legs to get a really big run, and I am not criticising that or complaining about it. But the automatic assumption that the Federal Police were investigating Mr Young is not necessarily correct. He may have been a material witness or someone they needed to check with on some of those details. Let me put that on the record. The honourable senator asks how I know whether the cheque and the letter were handed over at the same time. I do not think it would be necessary in terms of Mr Young's position that they were. The point is that at some stage-and I assume they were handed over together; I concede that-both were passed on to the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party, to the possession of the Party agent. The exact circumstances of that no doubt will be elucidated by the police report, and with a variety of explanations provided by the Opposition and the New South Wales branch as to how it was not disclosed. I have no further information to add to that point. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Is the Minister aware of reports that the Chrysler Motor Corporation in the United States of America is now fitting air bags into some of its new models to provide greater passenger protection in car accidents? Senator Chaney —There is a whole new career ahead of you. Senator MAGUIRE —This is a very serious question and it is very relevant. In view of the very serious loss of life on Australian roads and the injuries from car accidents in this country, together with the horrifying financial cost to the community of collisions, are there any proposals at present for the introduction of such devices in Australian manufactured cars? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the report in the Adelaide Advertiser about Chrysler's plans to fit safety air bags to some of its new models. I could mention, for the benefit of those honourable senators not familiar with the notion of an air bag as distinct from the two legged variety that prowl these corridors, that air bags are devices installed in the dashboards of some cars which are designed to inflate very quickly in a crash to provide an all enveloping kind of cushion to help protect the occupants. Air bags and other automatic restraints are the American response to the difficulties that that country has been having in persuading people to wear seat belts. Many States in the United States have been reluctant to introduce compulsory seat belt wearing laws, with the result that only 30 to 40 per cent of American drivers and passengers use seat belts. These automatic restraints are intended to give some protection where people will not wear seat belts. When people are wearing seat belts, which has now become almost universally the case in Australia, air bags are thought to provide only at most 5 per cent extra protection and are really effective only in a frontal crash. I understand that the American federal regulations requiring these devices could lapse if a majority of States in fact introduce laws, as may occur, requiring seat belts to be worn. The position in Australia, as will be implicit in what I have said, is quite different. We have compulsory seat belt laws and surveys carried out by the Federal Office of Road Safety in my Department of Transport and Communications indicate that the great majority of Australians use their seat belts. The 1987 Australian road toll, while still far too high at 2,751 fatalities, was down 4.7 per cent on the previous year and was in fact the lowest number of fatalities since 1963. That is despite a national population increase of 48 per cent over that period and a 185 per cent increase in vehicle numbers over that same period. Be that as it may, we obviously cannot afford to rest on our laurels and there is a continuing program of investigation by the Federal Office of Road Safety to see where the present package of Australian design rules might be able to be enhanced. It will look in its current review at a wide range of such issues, including the international standards, to make sure that we have the best that can reasonably be achieved. At this stage I have to say that it does appear doubtful whether the small additional benefit would warrant the use of air bags in Australia. Senator SANDERS —My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, and it follows on the answer by the Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories concerning the Kakadu National Park leases. My first question is: Has Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd ever applied to the Commonwealth Government for leases to explore the environmentally sensitive Coronation Hill areas of Kakadu National Park? If so, when? Secondly, will the Minister table in the Senate a copy of any Commonwealth or Northern Territory leases? Thirdly, as the Government now states that the Wilderness Society is wrong in its claim that the leases were illegal, does the Government intend to take any action against conservationists now protesting on the site? Senator TATE —Unfortunately I was absent from the chamber during Senator Richardson's answer as to some of the legalities surrounding the question of BHP's involvement in exploration activities at Coronation Hill. I believe in any case that the question would be better directed to him. I do not think the honourable senator was in the chamber either. Senator Sanders —Yes I was, but-- Senator TATE —I cannot give an answer. I will take the question on notice but I suspect that it has little, if anything, to do with my portfolio or that of the Attorney-General and that it really ought to be directed to my colleague Senator Richardson. If I can get an answer, I will. Senator BEAHAN —My question is to my esteemed colleague and former back bench partner Senator Cook, the Minister for Resources. Has the Minister seen recent advertisements by the Esso company warning of the adverse effects of the Government's taxes on the oil industry? What is the Minister's opinion of these advertisements? Does the Minister intend to take action to rectify the problems identified by Esso? Senator COOK —I have seen the advertisements that have appeared in various newspapers on behalf of Esso. As a new Minister for Resources I rather expected that Esso would contact me about the content of those advertisements, to discuss with me what it was campaigning about in public through the Press. But Esso did not contact me and as a consequence I took the initiative to contact it. My office yesterday contacted a Mr Glasson, the Manager of Corporate Relations and Planning of Esso. Therefore there is nothing that I will say in answer to this question that will come as a surprise to Esso. I regret that Esso has chosen to spend its money on incomplete and inaccurate presentations of its case rather than on exploration and development which would benefit all Australians. I should note that substantial excise concessions were granted last year to Esso and the other major petroleum companies. Those of us in the Senate will recall, and the oil industry is of course aware, that this Government has exempted from excise the first 30 million barrels of production from on-shore oil fields and new projects in off-shore areas still subject to excise and we have introduced the resource rent tax for the vast majority of new exploration and development ventures off-shore. The Government gave these concessions in return for undertakings of increased oil production, on development of new fields and on future exploration activity. That was a sensible deal which benefited both the industry and the consumer. Esso and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd have agreed that the next review of tax arrangements should be held in 1990. Despite the tax burden claimed by Esso, the company was able to repatriate the whole of its 1986 after tax profit, that is $350m, to its overseas shareholders. Esso is now trying to jump the gun and to pre-empt the result of the next review. There has been no significant change in the industry since last year which would warrant bringing the review forward. Oil prices have declined only marginally. The market for crude oil has already been deregulated. We have been encouraging the producers to explore for new fields, and have been giving them financial incentives to do so through the current excise taxation arrangements. What we can do as a government is obviously affected by considerations beyond our control, especially by the international price of oil. But we have been taking steps wherever we can. I remind the Senate of the most recent such step, the relaxation of foreign investment regulation of new petroleum projects, which is designed to boost investment in the industry. That is the general picture. Let me turn to Esso more specifically in terms of the question put to me by Senator Beahan. There is no guarantee that Esso would use any further excise concessions to increase exploration activity. Esso could simply declare higher profits or invest money in other countries. As I have said, last year Esso repatriated 100 per cent of its 1986 profits overseas. Our system of taxation and incentives is designed to give the petroleum companies the opportunity they need for further exploration and development. That system is clear and firm. The Australian people will see the dividends from our investments, which have resulted in the industry's own recent estimate that, this year, the number of on-shore exploration wells will reach a record level and strong levels of off-shore exploration are expected. These are policies which are geared to best reduce our dependence on imported oil. We will not overturn that policy in response to a couple of advertisements that have appeared in the Press. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the paper from which he so amply quoted. Senator COOK —Gladly. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice in his capacity as Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police and follows that just asked of the Minister for Home Affairs by Senator Short. I note that Senator Robert Ray said that the Government had a hands-off attitude to police investigations. I ask: Does the Minister not agree that it is grossly improper for Ministers to make statements such as were made by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister purporting to exonerate the former Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, given that a police inquiry was, and indeed is, still under way? What action has the Minister taken to protect the police investigating this matter in the apparent attempt to apply political pressure with respect to the outcome of the investigation? Senator TATE —I know of nothing in any statement made by the Prime Minister or by Senator Robert Ray which would suggest for one moment that they are attempting to bring undue influence to bear on investigators within the Australian Federal Police. For that reason I certainly will not be following the matter up any further. But I am quite confident that the Australian Federal Police report will, in the hands of the Australian Electoral Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions, be absolutely consistent with its investigations and its assessment of the facts and will not, in any way, be influenced in any case by any outside comment by whomsoever made it. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question: Is the Minister denying knowledge of statements by his colleagues, Senator Ray and the Prime Minister, claiming, following Mr Loosley's statements, that Mr Young has been exonerated? Is he saying that he is not aware of those statements? Is he saying that as Minister for Justice he does not regard that as a matter of concern, given that police, according to his colleague Senator Ray a few minutes ago, are still investigating these matters which may well involve breaches of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and, indeed, may well involve breaches of the criminal law in other respects; for example, criminal law of conspiracy? I ask him whether, as Minister for Justice, he has any concern at senior political figures making comments about whether individuals are exonerated before the police investigation is concluded. Senator TATE —If I thought for one moment that anybody was trying to influence the police in their investigations, then I would be concerned. I have already said that I do not believe that to be the case, but it still remains the fact that my first answer is correct. I have not seen these remarks in print, though I have some general understanding of the sorts of remarks the honourable senator attributes to the Prime Minister and Senator Ray. Unless I saw their exact words I would not be able to form the sort of opinion that the honourable senator is asking me to form. But I was not aware of the sorts of overtones that the honourable senator is attributing to any remarks made by either the Prime Minister or Senator Ray. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen a transcript of an interview with the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, on the AM program on 11 February this year? Has the Government noted the Liberal Party's support for the New Zealand tax package and Mr Howard's contention that it validates the tax policy put forward by his Party at the last Federal election? Following the Government's review of corporate taxation, will it be moving to replicate the New Zealand corporate tax structure? Senator WALSH —I have seen the transcript in question; I saw it last week, in fact. In that AM interview, Mr Howard generally endorsed the New Zealand package. It is worth drawing the attention of the Senate to some of the components of that package which Mr Howard endorsed, including the cancellation of deductibility on personal income tax for donations made to charities; taxing the income received by charities from their own investment; imposing a 24 per cent tax on employer contributions to superannuation funds and a 25 per cent tax on the earnings of those funds. All of these propositions were endorsed by Mr Howard in his general welcoming of the New Zealand tax package. There are also the questions of tougher substantiation rules in New Zealand and those applying in Australia. I thought a while ago that Mr Howard was supposed to be opposed to the substantiation rules which are applying here. He now endorses very much tougher substantiation rules in another country. Last and most importantly of all, Mr Howard has endorsed a 10 per cent consumption tax. There is a sense in which Mr Howard was perfectly correct when he claimed that the New Zealand package was very similar to his tax package which he developed before the election. I believe that that is an accurate claim because Mr Howard's tax package did have a consumption tax in it. That was knocked out of the Opposition's pre-election tax policy by the Queensland National Party. The Queensland National Party stood over the Liberal Party of Australia and the Liberal Party, just as it used to in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, as always, weakly caved in to pressure applied from the Queensland National Party or, in the old days, the Country Party. Once that central component of Mr Howard and the Opposition or the Liberal Party's tax policy was knocked out it left a gaping hole in the arithmetic which ultimately showed up in the form of a $1,500m plain arithmetic error, plus about another $4 billion or $5 billion worth of uncosted savings on the outlay side. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of the Hon. Brian Austin, the Queensland Minister for Finance, and the Hon. Jim Randell, the Queensland Minister for Local Government and Racing. I am sure honourable senators will join me in welcoming them to Canberra and to the Senate chamber. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator TAMBLING —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice as Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police (AFP). I ask: Which Ministers, other than himself, have given either instructions or directions or have received information from the Australian Federal Police or have had access to information deriving from the AFP in relation to their current investigations into the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd undisclosed financial donation to the Australian Labor Party? Senator TATE —I will take that question on notice. Senator FOREMAN —My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I draw the Minister's attention to an article in the Australian on 28 January under the heading `Comment' by Senator John Stone. In that article it was stated: . . . and the Commonwealth Government has decided that Australians can afford to borrow even more from foreign lenders in order to increase the level of foreign aid we are already uselessly providing to certain black African countries so that they can go on attacking South Africa with Mr Hayden's covert blessing. Is this assessment of Australian aid to African states correct? Senator GARETH EVANS —Even summoning up all the spirit of charity that I can muster towards Senator Stone-- Senator Stone —Try harder. Senator GARETH EVANS —It would have to be very hard. His comment in the Australian of 28 January about Australia's aid to certain black African countries is a complete distortion of the objectives of the Government's aid program. Mr Hayden's announcement on 15 September last year states quite clearly that the renewed aid program is to support the African countries which face military and economic destabilisation by the South African Government. Our aid is directed mainly to such sectors as food security and transport, which are prime development goals for these countries. Our humanitarian concern for victims of apartheid is also an important justification. No black African country has attacked South Africa militarily but there are plenty of examples of South African attacks on Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The black southern African countries' campaign against South Africa is a diplomatic and political effort to reverse the policy of apartheid. It is one that we feel morally obliged to support and we do so with conviction and as much resource allocation as we possibly can. The Government and the predecessor coalition Government have pursued, despite being subjected to periodic strains, a bipartisan policy against apartheid. The Government's aid program demonstrates our practical, as well as political, commitment to resisting apartheid. On the question of foreign borrowings, the aid program is funded as part of the overall government Budget. The Budget this financial year is expected to be in surplus rather than deficit, removing the need for the Commonwealth to be a net borrower this year. Despite the recent announcement of an expanded aid program for southern Africa, the priority regions for Australian aid remain, as Mr Hayden has made perfectly clear, Papua New Guinea, the South Pacific and South East Asia. We are well aware of our special responsibilities towards our immediate neighbours. The aid program reflects our humanitarian concerns and our political, strategic and commercial interests. We are, and will remain, the largest donor in the South Pacific. Aid per capita is much higher in Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific than in southern Africa. I finish by making the point and putting it very starkly-- Senator Stone —Don't be so sensitive. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is not a compliment I would ever care to throw in Senator Stone's direction. It would be manifestly inappropriate. In 1987-88, Australian aid to Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific is estimated at $75 per capita compared with 32c to southern Africa. It is evident that we have a long way to go before we could be said to be misallocating priorities and resources, given the fundamental nature, scale and abhorrent quality of the situation in that part of the world. Senator PUPLICK —I ask the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories: In what capacity was he present when Mr Loosley made his public confession of a breach of the Electoral Act in relation to the Harris-Daishowa donation-as a former State Australian Labor Party Secretary, as a person who jointly owns property with Mr Loosley or as the Minister who has to decide whether Harris-Daishowa gets its export licence? What involvement did the Minister have in the bizarre series of events leading to the belated discovery by Mr Loosley of the Harris-Daishowa letter in his old haunts of the Sydney headquarters of the Australian Labor Party? Has the Minister been interviewed by the Australian Federal Police investigating this tawdry affair? Senator RICHARDSON —It is an interesting question. I was told by Stephen Loosley that he had found the letter and that he was going to conduct a Press conference to announce that. I went down to support an old friend. That is something no one on the other side would understand. There was no official or unofficial capacity. I simply went as a friend. Concerning my role in this affair and whether I have been interviewed by the Federal Police, I think I can say that I have not been interviewed by the Federal Police. I am not aware of any role I have had in this affair. But I was thinking this morning that I could not understand how a week had gone by without my being accused of that. Now Senator Puplick is rising to the bait. All I can say to Senator Puplick is that, as usual, his suspicious little mind is wrong. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. On what grounds did the Minister assume that Mr Loosley needed support on this occasion? Was the Minister's presence in support of Mr Loosley intended in any way to convey a message either to the Federal Police or to Harris-Daishowa? Senator RICHARDSON —That question is far too ludicrous to answer and I have no intention of doing so. Senator COULTER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. I draw the Minister's attention to the debate late last year on the pesticide dichlorvos, a debate which was reported quite widely at the time in the Press. Is the Minister aware that the pesticide dichlorvos, widely used in Baygon, Shell pest strips and applications in domestic and other buildings, has been found by the United States National Toxicology Panel to cause cancer in two animal species? Is the Minister aware that the production of cancer in two species suggests a very high likelihood that such an agent will cause human cancer and is one criterion used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to identify potential human carcinogens? Has the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) had this American report before it? Has the NHMRC considered this report? If so, what are the findings? If not, why is consideration taking so long, bearing in mind that this matter was reported in the Chemical Regulation Reporter of 17 July 1987? Will the Minister give the NHMRC a hurry-up? Senator COOK —I counted six or seven parts to that long question from Senator Coulter, all of which require a fairly detailed answer; so I propose to take the question on notice to do just that. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask the Minister for Home Affairs: How many members of the current Federal Parliament were born outside Australia? What steps have been taken by him, as Minister, or the Australian Electoral Office, to verify that all persons elected to the Parliament are Australian citizens? Have these inquiries also been made in relation to unsuccessful candidates? Is it not a fact that section D of form EF 059/4 requires candidates for the Senate to declare that they are qualified under the Australian Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth to be elected as a senator? Would the presence on the ballot paper of candidates who are not eligible to be elected nullify the conduct and outcome of that election? Senator ROBERT RAY —In answer to the first part of Senator MacGibbon's question, I have not done an accurate count of how many successful candidates to this Parliament were born outside Australia. There is a very strong presumption, however, that for people who were not British subjects to get on the roll, they would have to be naturalised. The only way they could come to this Parliament, not being British subjects, would be to put in false enrolment cards as Australian citizens. That would usually be picked up in the enrolment process or by some other method. I ask honourable senators not to hold me to these figures but there are approximately 10 members of the Australian Labor Party who would come into that category of British subject and I believe there are three members on the Liberal side. I do not know whether there are any on the National side; they usually do not travel anywhere. The second part of the question-- Senator MacGibbon —What steps have you taken? Senator ROBERT RAY —I have not taken any steps. It is not my responsibility to pursue this matter. It would be up to members of either chamber to pursue it if they thought someone was in error. I have absolutely no ministerial responsibility in this regard. Senator MacGibbon asked how many unsuccessful candidates there were. I made the point fairly clearly today but I shall repeat it for the honourable senator. The 1983 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act made it quite clear that it was not the responsibility of the Electoral Commission to investigate the qualifications of candidates to sit in this chamber or the House of Representatives. That was precisely put in the Electoral Act. It was not disputed in this chamber or the other chamber when those amendments were put through. We regarded divisional returning officers as not properly qualified to deal with matters such as the Senate basically is now referring to the High Court of Australia. Much as I like my divisional returning officers around the country I cannot claim that they are necessarily of the same intellectual calibre as High Court judges. That protection was placed in the Act so that divisional returning officers did not have to investigate thousands of candidates who would have nominated in the last election to determine whether they were citizens. Candidates had to make declarations to that effect. Only three categories of persons would have been able to sneak through. The first category was British subjects who enrolled prior to 1984. The second category included people who were properly enrolled but who were continuing to be in an office of profit under the Crown. There may have been those in a third category, who would be very hard to detect, as honourable senators would imagine, with 10 million enrollees, who falsely enrolled and who did not have Australian citizenship. The remedy in such cases is for any elector in the country to take a case to the Court of Disputed Returns by petition within 40 days of the return of the writ in order to challenge the election. The fundamental legal point that has not yet been determined, but which is suspected because of section 353 (1) of the Electoral Act, is that an election itself cannot be challenged outside the terms of division 1 of section 22 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The section provides that one cannot challenge an election 40 days after the return of the writs if one has not previously done so. I suspect that if one were to put a microscope over every candidate and find that some were not qualified, there would be no remedy. There would be a remedy if they were successful candidates but there would be no remedy in terms of voiding an election in the past. Senator MacGibbon also asked how many of those candidates, to our knowledge, were not specifically qualified in terms of citizenship. Overall, we have knowledge of two, and one on the basis of citizenship. In one seat after the close of nominations in the last Federal election the candidate informed the Electoral Commission that he did not have Australian citizenship. The matter was referred to government solicitors to see whether he could be prosecuted for false declaration but the advice of the government solicitors was that unless he knowingly made a false declaration there was no remedy under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Senator MacGibbon may want to ask a supplementary question to find out which electorate it is. It is a Liberal-held electorate which was held with a margin of 1.5 per cent at the last election. The electorate is situated in the bayside suburbs and it is held by the shadow Attorney-General. Can the honourable senator work it out from there? I do not want to give a bigger hint than that. The case involving an office of profit under the Crown is a Labor seat held by a Minister in another place with probably even now a 65 per cent margin. I think Senator MacGibbon will be able to work out that one as well. I cannot give a legal opinion, but it is hard to see how any of those elections can be placed in jeopardy 40 days after the return of writs period has been exceeded. In the case of a successful candidate we may have had to go through the unfortunate steps we had to go through today. But the remedy is not in changing the Act; the Act is perfectly good. The Government will, firstly, certainly be suggesting that the Electoral Commission, by way of regulation, change the nomination forms to give this requirement prominence. Secondly, we will fairly drastically increase the penalties, not only for knowingly making false declarations but also for the making of false declarations, to prevent those circumstances arising again. It would be difficult for divisional returning officers when they are given five or six nominations for the House of Representatives to ask for citizenship papers. Honourable senators know what happens when the polls close. There is a draw for position, ballot papers are organised to allow people to cast absentee votes and it may take days to check all the details. The remedy must remain that already provided in the Court of Disputed Returns. Senator CROWLEY —I direct a question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. One of the most perturbing things confronting us over recent weeks has been the sight on television of Israeli troops following their Government's instructions for fierce and brutally forceful attention to Palestinian citizens in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Will the Minister indicate what the Government's attitude to that behaviour has been and what actions the Government has taken or will take? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no doubt that the events of the past few weeks have proved distressing for a great many people around the world, including those of us who have always had a deep affection and respect for Israel and who have been strongly supportive of it. What has been happening in recent times has made the situation extremely difficult. We have deplored, as a government, the loss of life and civil unrest occurring in Israeli-occupied Arab territories and we remain deeply concerned at the continuing unrest in Gaza and the West Bank. Mr Hayden has stressed, during his current visit to the Middle East, that Israel has a responsibility under the fourth Geneva convention to ensure protection of the indigenous inhabitants of the occupied territories and that Israel's methods of dealing with Palestinian demonstrators in the West Bank and Gaza have damaged prospects of reaching an Arab-Israeli peace settlement. The problems facing both Israel and the Arab population of the occupied territories cannot be separated from the need for a settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute on the basis of Israel's right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Courageous political leadership by all parties to the dispute is necessary to secure the economic and social well-being and the political freedoms of all the peoples in the region. On 28 January the Government announced that it would provide $200,000 for the emergency and relief activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the West Bank and Gaza. The funds will be used by UNRWA to meet the costs of distributing food and medical supplies, upgrading health care programs and other emergency needs in the affected areas. They are in addition to Australia's contribution of $1.2 million for UNRWA's general program for 1988. Senator VANSTONE —I direct a question to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices. I congratulate him on his appointment. If the newspapers are any indication it was a long, hard and close battle for him. I refer to the recent Adelaide by-election when the issue of timed local telephone calls played a part in the massive rejection of the Labor Government and the election of Michael Pratt as the member for Adelaide. Is the Government concerned about the cost of telephone calls to Australians-in the light of a previous debate today perhaps I should say British subjects and any other residents-and the threat of higher charges, directly or indirectly, through any flow-on from businesses that may be hit by a review of Telecom charges to business? Does the Minister accept that many people cannot pay the high cost of Telecom's inefficiency? Does the Minister bring to this matter any personal experience of the cost of telephone calls and the inability to pay for a call he wanted or needed to make? What was the outcome of any such experience? Senator BOLKUS —I thank Senator Vanstone for the time and effort she has put into the question today. I know she would like to hear my attitude on Telecom time charging, but I suspect that the question she really wanted to ask was the one she attempted to drag out at the end. I sat up last night for some time wondering what sort of question I would be asked by the Opposition today. Given that my port- folio encompasses a whole range of areas of concern to consumers I thought it might have concerned consumer debt, product standards or something as important as that, but obviously those sorts of issues are not of concern to Senator Vanstone. I do not have anything to say on Telecom time charging further to what has already been said by the official government spokespeople. Senator Vanstone has been on the front bench long enough to appreciate that Senator Evans is one person with direct responsibility in this area, with whom the question could have been raised. In view of the fact that she has not chosen to ask him that question I do not think I should give her the benefit of my knowledge. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Senator Richardson —You got it right. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes, I looked it up. My question refers particularly to the tourism section of his portfolio. Is the Minister aware that thousands of potential tourists keen to visit Australia during the bicentennial year will be unable to do so because insufficient airline flights are available to bring them here? Is the Minister aware that the Government's refusal to allow greater international airline access to Queensland will, in effect, deprive World Expo 88 of thousands of overseas visitors? Would the Minister consider supporting a `free skies' proposal for the duration of World Expo 88 or, ideally, for the duration of the bicentennial year? Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Bjelke- Petersen, I say that I too shall come and look at Expo 88 and I hope that there is a seat for me. The Government obviously recognises the importance of adequate capacity to facilitate inbound tourists coming to Australia and, of course, to Queensland. The unprecedented growth in tourism in Australia in recent years has been brought about, I might say, by the innovative Minister of previous days, John Brown, who in his five years tenure in the job managed to double tourism in this country, and he should be thanked by all of us for it. Due to that growth there have been some seat shortages. However, the Government has approved some 400 supplementary services to make sure that we can cope with peak demand. Up until March this year Qantas has wet-leased three additional aircraft to meet that demand. That, I hope, is a process that will continue, and my colleague Senator Gareth Evans can probably fill in more detail on that. Agreement has recently been reached with Singapore and Thailand for increases in permanent capacity to commence soon. Negotiations are currently proceeding at airline and government level with several other countries, including Canada and the United States, on additional permanent capacity. These measures should ensure that the growth in inbound tourism can be catered for. I recognise that Expo 88 is important and will bring a great many people to Queensland, but there are people who want to come to Australia to see places other than Brisbane, and I want to make sure that we look after them as well. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it concurs in the resolution transmitted in the Message of the Senate relating to the time and place of the Joint Sitting for the purpose of choosing a person to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator Susan Maree Ryan. Rules of Conduct of Business Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate with the rules adopted by the House of Representatives for the conduct of the business of a Joint Sitting with the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I inform honourable senators that the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Alan Cumming Thom, retired yesterday, on his sixtieth birthday. Alan Cumming Thom was born in Scotland and came to Australia with his family as a boy. After graduating from Sydney University in arts and law, he was employed as a legal officer in the Attorney-General's Department between 1951 and 1955. He came to the Senate Department in 1955 after applying for the position of Clerk of Records. At that time the Department consisted of only a handful of people. Since then he has served in every important office in the Department with great distinction. For a long period he was the procedural adviser to the Ministry, at a time when the then Government lost its majority in the Senate, a situation which had not existed for some 10 years, and he became indispensable to a succession of Leaders of the Government in the Senate. From 1970 to 1979 he was Clerk-Assistant and had administrative and advisory responsibility for the Senate committee system, which embarked upon its great expansion with the establishment of the standing committee system in 1970. The successful establishment of the committee system was in large part due to his sound advice and assistance. In this task he was assisted by his long experience as a secretary to committees, including major select committees such as that on medical and hospital costs. In 1972 he was awarded a Churchill Fellowship and travelled to Europe and North America to study legislative committee systems, and became an authority on the practical operations of parliamentary committees. He was appointed Clerk of the Senate in 1982. During this long and distinguished career generations of senators have relied on his wisdom, experience and knowledge to assist and guide them in their parliamentary activities. I am sure that current senators are no exception. I would like to express my own personal appreciation of the assistance of Alan Cumming Thom, which has been of great help to me during my first year as President. I am sure that all senators will join me in wishing him and his wife a long and happy retirement. I inform senators that, consequent upon the retirement of Mr Cumming Thom, I have recommended to His Excellency the Governor-General the appointment of the Deputy Clerk, Mr Harry Evans, as Clerk of the Senate. I also inform honourable senators that Mr Tom Wharton, formerly Clerk-Assistant (Management), resigned from the Department of the Senate on 22 January 1988 to take up an appointment in private enterprise. Tom Wharton joined the Senate Department in 1966, and was a most valuable officer in the procedural and administrative areas of the Department. Honourable senators will be aware that it was largely due to his efforts that advanced information systems for use by senators in the new Parliament House were planned and implemented. I am sure that all senators will miss his helpful advice, always so cheerfully given, and I express my personal appreciation of his very valuable assistance over many years. The senior positions, other than that of Clerk, which are vacant in the Department of the Senate have been filled by Senate officers on an acting basis pending the advertising of those positions in the near future. The departures of Alan Cumming Thom and Tom Wharton follow soon after the retirement of Mr Bert Nicholls, former Deputy Clerk, and the resignation of Mr Peter Murdoch, who also left to go into private business, and to whom I referred at the end of the last period of sittings. Senators will appreciate that the loss over a relatively short period of such valuable and experienced officers will mean that some of the senior positions in the Senate Department will be occupied by relatively new people. This may mean some temporary and small diminution in the high standard of service provided to senators, and I would ask senators to bear with the officers during their settling-down period. The Department and the whole Parliament is facing a period of great challenges, especially occasioned by the move to the new building. I would like to say that we are fortunate in having other officers of a high calibre in the service of the Senate, and I express my confidence in their ability to maintain the excellent advice to which senators are accustomed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to move a motion relating to the retirement of the Clerk. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: That, on the occasion of the retirement of Alan Cumming Thom from the position of Clerk of the Senate, the Senate places on record its appreciation of his long and valuable contribution to the Parliament, and conveys to him good wishes for a long and happy retirement. As you mentioned, Mr President, Alan Cumming Thom had a career in the Senate Department which made him an ideal Clerk for the Senate, and his experience culminated in his being just that: an outstanding Clerk. He had a very great knowledge of the Standing Orders and also about the constraints under which this chamber operates, and some of the temptations which it inflicts on members of the chamber to behave in particular ways from time to time. Alan Cumming Thom's personable nature and wry sense of humour always made it a pleasure for senators to seek his counsel either for formal advice or, in some cases, for a detailed assessment of who was likely to win the cricket. He has made particular contributions to the important work of the Senate committee system and to the proposed transition to the new Parliament House. I regret, in a sense, that he will not be making that transition with us. I personally valued what I would like to call the friendship of Alan Cumming Thom, and for that reason and for the reason that I have indicated, I wish him and his wife a long and happy retirement. I am sure that I speak for all senators in noting that his presence will be profoundly missed. I would like also to congratulate Harry Evans on his pending appointment as Clerk to succeed Alan Cumming Thom. I am confident that he will bring qualities to the job that will enable him to meet the challenges of the job. I would also like to be associated, Mr President, with the comments that you made about Tom Wharton. Tom Wharton has left the service of the Senate in the prime of life. It is rare that Senate officers are exposed to, and tempted by, what is offered in private enterprise, and Tom Wharton fell into that category. I think he fell into that category because the Senate asked him to do a particular job in respect of the information systems in the new Parliament House, and in the course of doing that he saw a career opportunity which I believe he will find very fulfilling, and perhaps more fulfilling than his position as a Clerk of the Senate. I certainly had a high regard for Tom; I am sure all senators did. He too will be missed. I would like to wish him every success in his future career. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., the sitting of the Senate is suspended until the ringing of the bells after the Joint Sitting. Honourable senators are reminded that the Joint Sitting of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives will occur in the Senate chamber at 8 p.m. Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Hansard 1988 The Joint Sitting convened pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 met in the Senate chamber, Parliament House, Canberra. Tuesday, 16 February 1988 The Joint Sitting met at 8 p.m. The President of the Senate, as Chairman of the Joint Sitting, took the chair. The Speaker of the House of Representatives took a seat on the dais. The CHAIRMAN —Madam Speaker, honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives: Pursuant to the provisions of section 44 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, this Joint Sitting has been convened by His Excellency the Governor-General to choose a person to hold a place in the Senate in the representation of the Australian Capital Territory rendered vacant by the resignation of the Hon. Susan Maree Ryan. The instrument convening the Joint Sitting will be read by the Clerk. The instrument having been read by the Clerk- The CHAIRMAN —In accordance with the rules adopted by both Houses, the Joint Sitting will now proceed to choose a person to hold the vacant place. Is there a proposal? Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(8.02) —Mr Chairman, I propose Robert Francis McMullan as the choice of the Senate and the House of Representatives sitting together to be the person to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator the Hon. Susan Maree Ryan. Mr McMullan has indicated that he is willing to hold the vacant place if chosen. That is the last of my surprises for the evening. I am informed that Mr McMullan is eligible to be chosen for the Senate-that has its own significance-and that the nomination is in accordance with sub-section 44 (3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Bob McMullan has been endorsed by the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) branch of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to fill the vacancy created by Susan Ryan's retirement. He is particularly well qualified for the task as Susan Ryan's successor. He is a person of demonstrated capacity, integrity and energy. Bob has given many years of service to the Australian Labor Party, being a member since 1969. In his youth, Bob was prominent in his native State of Western Australia in the campaign against conscription and the Vietnam war. He was, in fact, the first person in Western Australia to establish through the courts his conscientious objection to conscription on the basis of political principle rather than religious principle. Bob McMullan is well known to all in this Parliament for his long and professional service to the Australian Labor Party, most notably as National Secretary for the last eight years. His tenure has coincided with the unfolding of the period of the ALP's greatest political and electoral success. Bob's contribution to this success has been invaluable-in his role as national campaign director, in modernising the machinery of our great Party, and in his advice in the development of relevant and progressive policies. A monument to Bob's tenure as National Secretary is the substantially enhanced status and role of women in the forums of the ALP. Bob McMullan has been a resident of the Australian Capital Territory since 1980 and has been as active in local community affairs as his heavy party responsibilities would allow. The great respect with which Bob is held in my Party and in the community at large was demonstrated by his endorsement for this vacancy by the members of the ACT branch. I have no doubt that Bob McMullan will undertake his duties as a senator for the ACT with the same professionalism, dedication and enthusiasm as he brought to his work as National Secretary. Mr Chairman, I wholeheartedly commend to this Joint Sitting of Parliament Bob McMullan's nomination as ACT senator and I look forward to the valuable contributions he will undoubtedly make to the Parliament and to my Government. The CHAIRMAN —Is the proposal seconded? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(8.05) —I am privileged to second the nomination of Mr Robert McMullan. I am very confident that he will bring to the Senate considerable experience and talent, and he is a valuable addition to the Government in the Senate. As to Mr McMullan's history and career, I fully endorse the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I have nothing to add because, as is well known, we always agree. In those circumstances, Mr Chairman, I am happy to commend Mr McMullan to the Joint Sitting. The CHAIRMAN —Is there any further proposal of a person to hold the vacant place in the Senate? Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.07) —Mr Chairman, the Liberal and National parties will not be proposing a candidate to fill this vacancy. As the vacancy arises in terms of section 15 of the Constitution and the person whose vacancy is being filled was a member of the Australian Labor Party and the person proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is also a member of the Australian Labor Party, it is appropriate that that person be elected by this Joint Sitting to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Senator Ryan. I would like to take the opportunity to say one or two things about Mr McMullan, as he is the only nomination. I listened with great interest to what the Prime Minister said about the person who until recently was National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. I think it is fair to say on behalf of everybody in this chamber that, whatever our political leanings may be, Mr McMullan brought very special professional skills to the job that he discharged. I was interested to hear the Prime Minister talk about the contribution that Mr McMullan has made to the Australian Labor Party and the views that he holds on a variety of subjects. I must say I was disappointed that the Prime Minister omitted reference to one or two of Mr McMullan's undoubted capacities. The first of those is his capacity to know the right account in which to put a campaign donation. There is no doubt that he would know the difference between a campaign donation and a maintenance donation. He would know that better than anybody else. I was also very disappointed that the Prime Minister failed to make any reference at all to the very considerable contribution that Mr McMullan has made to the intellectual debate in Australian politics about the damage done to political parties by factionalism. He has made a very interesting contribution. We had a perfect example of this, an absolutely exquisite demonstration, in the Caucus room yesterday. We had a contest between the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) and Senator Bolkus. On every criterion, the person who now seeks to interject, the Prime Minister, should have been supporting the honourable member for Kingston. If he had been following the advice of the man whom he has now proposed to the Senate he would have supported the honourable member for Kingston, but instead of that he went ahead and supported somebody who has opposed just about every position the Prime Minister has taken on major foreign policy issues in his Government and he supported a person whom, according to the dictates of his own principles, he should have opposed. I think it is poetic justice indeed that the very warning that Mr McMullan sounded about factionalism in the Australian Labor Party was perfectly played out yesterday with the Prime Minister putting up his hand because of a factional deal for the left wing Senator Bolkus against the far more responsible and far more praiseworthy honourable member for Kingston, Mr Gordon Bilney. I say it is absolutely disgraceful that that is the case. We do welcome Mr McMullan and we hope that when he comes to this Parliament he will carry that same independence and fervour of conviction to the debates that he brings to the Caucus meetings. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.12) —Mr President, Madam Speaker, senators and colleagues, those of us who sit within the conservative parties in the Parliament regard the Senate as the States House. We see within this chamber an opportunity for protecting and preserving the quality of administration that is necessary in governing a highly indebted country such as Australia. We see in this place an opportunity for the smaller States to be able to present their point of view and articulate their concerns. It is on the basis of our concern, therefore, for the traditions of the place and our intention to maintain the quality of the Parliament that neither the National Party of Australia nor the Liberal Party of Australia will be nominating for the vacancy which is about to be filled. However, I think it is worth while tonight, Mr President and Madam Speaker, to advise honourable members and senators that when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) first spoke to the House of Representatives on the changes to administrative arrangements he told it that he was intent upon increasing the responsiveness of the bureaucracy to the Government's wishes and upon increasing democratic accountability through Ministers to Parliament and the community. He then continued: Portfolio Ministers are ultimately responsible for the administration of their entire portfolios and will be accountable to the Parliament for the overall operation of their portfolios. Mr President and Madam Speaker, it concerns me that in the administration of the Parliament the Australian Labor Party-certainly under Bob Hawke-is no longer following those principles. We trust that with the appointment of an apparatchik such as Senator-to-be McMullan, who comes from the organisation, who has demonstrated a skill that I am quite sure would never have led the former member for Port Adelaide into the problems that have beset him, there might well be in this place henceforward a tendency to accept the responsibilities that there should be from a government that is no longer divided. We all recall the election policy pledge of the Prime Minister on 23 June. He said, `We come before you as one united team-the one united team in which there will be in the Ministry three Queenslanders, three women and a Tasmanian'. It was a united team in which the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) said, `I am not going to be shuffled aside just so they can dispense patronage to their mates'; within which the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) said, `There is a very simple flaw in the whole equation and that is that ability and accomplishment are just disregarded, in some cases almost totally disregarded'. We need to remember, Mr President and Madam Speaker, that in the course of the last little while we have seen an acceleration of ministerial resignations. Senator Gietzelt, the former Senator Grimes, Mr Hurford, the honourable member for Robertson, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), the former Leader of the House and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and member for Port Adelaide, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), Senator Ryan and, of course, the father of the House, Mr Tom Uren, the honourable member for Reid, have resigned from the Ministry. A number of other Ministers should have gone-Senator Gareth Evans, Senator Walsh, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the former Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Support and the former Minister for Transport. Of course, today the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) demonstrated that he no longer is entitled to hold a portfolio. The point is that today's Labor Caucus is a constant grubby and greedy factional battleground. It is a contest of crude ambition, steeled by the knives of the Party piranhas. Government members fight amongst themselves to stay in power. Their policies are the figments of muzzled backroom deals and currying favour with the unions. There is no doubt that the currying for favour with the unions and their powerful mates is symptomatic of where the Government is today. Unfortunately, the losers are the Australian people. Within this chamber we wish the about-to-be senator well but we say to him that his responsibilities in this chamber will be onerous indeed in that little time Labor remains in government. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(8.17) —Mr Chairman, senators and members, I wish to strike a slightly discordant note in supporting my Leader, Mr Howard, and the Leader of the National Party of Australia in the House of Representatives, Mr Sinclair, by welcoming Bob McMullan to the Senate. I do that because he is a fellow Western Australian. Whilst to the people of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) he may be a carpetbagger, to me he is one of ours. As far as I am concerned, a good Western Australian is the best option if we have to have a Labor senator. This induction of a new senator is taking place on a day when we woke up and listened to Mr Unsworth on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation making what sounded like a speech written by Barrie Unsworth rather than a speech written by somebody called Freudenberg. I am quite sure that many of the honourable senators and members opposite were listening to Mr Unsworth and his statements about the state of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the attitude that the New South Wales Labor Party will be taking in the lead-up to the election. This is a day on which the criticisms which have been made by the Opposition of the Hawke Labor Government are as nothing when compared with the criticisms which have been made by members of the Australian Labor Party and Mr Unsworth in particular. I remind honourable senators and members that Mr Unsworth last night-it was broadcast today-was saying that there was a clear message that the ALP had to work for the people again. I quote: The Labor Party, at all levels, must be perceived not just as the true government of the people but the true voice of the people . . . And we can only be their voice if we . . . listen to their voice. I think the significance of the nomination of Mr Bob McMullan to this Senate place for the ACT is that he is just the latest in a series of ALP bureaucrats who have been put into the Senate as if it is some form of retirement home. I have to say that when we copped Graham Richardson we thought that was pretty tough but then we got Michael Beahan and Senator Schacht. He actually wore a tie on television the other day before the selection of a Minister. I remind the chamber that we have had four Labor Party apparatchiks coming into this place to match the 27 trade union leaders who have been put into the Parliament over recent years. If the people of Australia are wondering why the Australian Labor Party is out of touch with them they should look at the composition of the Labor side of this Parliament, because it is made up of union bureaucrats and trade union leaders who, on recent surveys, are the least trusted people in Australia. That is the sad statistical fact that it must put up with. All I can say is that, whilst it continues to make this Parliament unrepresentative by filling it with such a disproportionate number of trade union and Labor Party apparatchiks, it will continue to lose touch with the men and women of Australia, who know that it does not represent their interests. It represents the interests of its own bureaucracies and its own narrow membership. We have just had a by-election in South Australia. In that by-election Labor tried to put another trade unionist into Parliament. It was defeated in that by-election. That, I believe, is the pattern which demonstrates the unwisdom of the Labor Party closing off this Parliament from the people of Australia in the way that it has. Whilst I acknowledge the very considerable professional achievements of Mr McMullan and whilst I, as a Western Australian, welcome him to this place to represent the Australian Capital Territory, I also say that I think it is time that the Labor Party realised that its failure to do other than look after its own is one of the reasons why it is widely being despised by its own. There is no suggestion that these people are making Australia safer for democracy, but they are making it very safe for themselves. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(8.22) —I speak as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I cannot but follow the temptation of the theme that was put down by Senator Chaney, particularly as I see opposite, together, those two graphic blobs of protoplasm who are the functional operatives, to be joined in this House by yet another kneecapper. If Senator Chaney is right in striking the theme that these operators are being brought in to control the mendacious lot that sit opposite, I can also strike the theme that he struck before when he talked about Mick's by-election. It is an auspicious day for Senator McMullan, as he will be, to come into this chamber-the day on which we have sworn in the Liberal member for Adelaide. Senator Richardson —Do you think you will win over the waverers, Andrew? Mr PEACOCK —It is all very well for Senator Richardson to interject. He really was one-upped. He travelled around the country saying that he had a vision for conservation, but Mick one-upped him with his $10,000 vision. As for attending the Press conference to help his little mate because he felt sorry for him, God knows what will happen to the rest of them. The third theme that Senator Chaney struck was that of battling Barrie Unsworth in New South Wales. On the day that we see Senator-elect McMullan come into this chamber-to pick up Senator Chaney's theme of battling Barrie-I note that Unsworth actually asked, on this historic day, for a fair go. I thought we would meet him halfway: we will be fair to him and he can go. The reality is that the Opposition is not opposing Senator McMullan's nomination but it is pointing out, as Senator Chaney so correctly nailed, the increasing number of paid operators, the movers of the pawns in the chess game, who are coming into this chamber and, indeed, the trade union officials-for example, the one nominated in the Adelaide by-election. I wish Senator McMullan well, but we are sworn and duty bound to seek his removal at the next election. That may well be sooner than many think. Where is Paul? Is he here? Leaving that to one side, we have no opposition to McMullan, but give a reminder of the way in which the Australian Labor Party is changing. I will not go over what Kim Beazley Snr said, but a few members ought to look around to see the changing nature of this once great Party at the commencement of its demise. Mr Spender-Mr Chairman-- Senator Haines —Mr Chairman-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Will the honour- able member please resume his seat. Mr Spender-To whom are your referring? The CHAIRMAN —You. Mr Spender-I thought that might be so. Honourable senators and honourable members interjecting- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I call for order on both sides. I call the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.26) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I would like to welcome Bob McMullan to this place. I hope he does not think that the behaviour exhibited here tonight is any indication of the normal proceedings of the Senate. The attendance of members from the House of Representatives has turned it into much more of a zoo than it normally is. I assure him that under normal circumstances the place operates in a much more decorous fashion. Senator Chaney commented that it is unfortunate that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) is putting in so many trade union officials because this particular group of people is not well regarded in the community. Honourable senators and honourable members interjecting The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator HAINES —In the main, when the electorate is asked what it thinks of certain professions and occupations, it tends to place politicians somewhere between pimps and purse snatchers. So I suspect that in any event trade unionists are not treated much worse, in the community's estimate, than we are. Mr McMullan is following a very competent and tough senator who represented the Australian Capital Territory. As a Minister she was exemplary in the attention that she paid to her portfolio-often, and ultimately, to her cost. Sue Ryan was tough enough, honest enough and concerned enough about the portfolio of education to do herself a great deal of damage by bucking the party system. Senator Wood —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Haines, there is a point of order from Senator Wood. Senator Wood —Would you, Mr Chairman, call the right honourable member for New England to order. I cannot hear Senator Haines's speech. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I call for silence on both sides so that Senator Haines can be heard. Senator HAINES —I must say that Senator Wood-if indeed that is what he still is-is gamer than I in taking a point of order. I had contemplated doing so when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was reading his speech of nomination. Of course, that is against Standing Orders in the Senate. In any event, I chose to be somewhat more diplomatic. As I was saying, Senator Ryan was a tough and competent Minister who lost a lot of points in the Labor Party by bucking the system with regard to tertiary fees in a portfolio that she held dear. More importantly, her toughness is made apparent by the fact that of all members and senators who have recently retired from this place she was the only one with the capacity, the ability and the guts to find herself another job-and in the private sector. Everybody else who has recently left this place, from either side of the chamber, has had to be placed in a government position. The former member for Boothby, Mr McLeay, was sent by the Liberal Party as Consul-General to Los Angeles-which makes something of a mockery of the Liberal Party's criticisms of Chris Hurford, who went as Consul-General to New York. He is soon to be followed by Mr McVeigh, as Queensland's Agent-General to London, and was preceded by two eminent ex-senators, Doug McClelland and Don Grimes, who were given ambassadorial positions. So I say to Sue Ryan what I used to say to her here: You did a good job, you will continue to do a good job, and good luck. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There being only one person proposed, I put the question: That Robert Francis McMullan be chosen to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of the Hon. Susan Maree Ryan. Question resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —As required by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I shall, as President of the Senate, certify to His Excellency the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia the choice made by the Joint Sitting. In accordance with the rules, I now declare the Joint Sitting closed. Joint Sitting concluded at 8.31 p.m. Senate sitting resumed at 9 p.m. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that at a Joint Sitting of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives held this day pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, Robert Francis McMullan was chosen to hold the place in the Senate in the representation of the Australian Capital Territory rendered vacant by the resignation of the Hon. Susan Maree Ryan. In accordance with sub-section 44 (6) of the Act, the name of the senator chosen by the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives has been certified to His Excellency the Governor-General. Senator Robert Francis McMullan made and subscribed the affirmation of allegiance. Debate resumed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.03) —On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to offer its support of the motion which was moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I suppose that a retiring Clerk may well feel a bit like a retiring senator-that it requires departure to bring forth praise-but I very happily join in the thanks which were expressed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate for what has been a near working lifetime of service to the Senate. Alan Cumming Thom had a very long apprenticeship under Mr Odgers, and one might have expected talent to stultify after such a long period of stable leadership, if you like; but I think it is a tribute to Mr Odgers that his succession was so smooth and that he left behind him a cadre of officers with equal devotion to the Senate and equally able to give it guidance. I believe that Mr Cumming Thom served the Senate particularly well. I would like to express my thanks for the qualities which I think were very adequately described by Senator Button in his speech-Mr Cumming Thom's consideration; his very great talent, which was always available to us; and, I believe, his utter impartiality in conducting his duties. When Mr Cumming Thom told me that he was leaving-I must say it was a great surprise to me that he did choose to retire at the age of 60 because I found it hard to imagine him not working for the Senate-I expressed the view, which I would like to express publicly, that I thought an additional tribute to the effectiveness of his service to the Senate was that he was leaving behind him a person he was recommending for appointment who was very well suited for the task of Clerk of the Senate. Again I think that in mentioning the Opposition's strong support for the accession of Harry Evans to the position of Clerk of the Senate I should say that in a way I think that is a great compliment to Alan Cumming Thom. I think the established succession is a very healthy sign. Having said that, I also mention the two other officers who left recently, one of whom was mentioned in a speech given by the Leader of the Government, and the other who left some time ago. If he was mentioned at the time, I am afraid I was not here to join in. I refer to Tom Wharton and Peter Murdoch, both of whom gave long and, I believe, very high quality service to the Senate, and both of whom left the Senate to undertake positions in private enterprise, one self-employed and the other employed. From the time that I arrived in the Senate in 1974 I must say that I found those then relatively junior officers both very good company and very good professional guides. I believe that both gave sterling service to the Senate and I very much regret from the Senate's point of view that they both saw fit to move on to what undoubtedly were greener pastures. The maintenance of proper parliamentary standards and, indeed, the proper maintenance of our parliamentary institutions require a high degree of professional skill and devotion from the officials who serve the Senate. I believe that Mr Cumming Thom and the other officials I have mentioned have performed their tasks with very great distinction. I thank them for that and I wish each of them a very successful post-Senate life. In Mr Cumming Thom's case, I wish him a long and happy retirement with Mrs Cumming Thom, and in the case of Tom Wharton and Peter Murdoch I wish them very great success in their commercial life. I hope that they will visit us from time to time and explain to us that the grass is not always greener outside the Senate. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.07) —I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to support the Government's motion of appreciation of Alan Cumming Thom's good services to the Senate, and good they were. Alan was affable and inevitably good humoured no matter what sorts of pressures we applied to him. He was even tempered, which is something fairly rare around this place, and he was a fountain of information for those of us who needed assistance from time to time. Senator Sanders —You are talking as though he were dead. Senator HAINES —No, he is not dead. In fact, he is probably more alive now that he has been for some time. It was said by a previous Clerk of this place, Jim Odgers, in Australian Senate Practice that the Clerk of the Senate is the permanent head of the Department of the Senate and, subject to the direction of the President, responsible for the administration and control of the Department. I would say that is a masterly piece of understatement, given the way in which in many ways the Clerk of the Senate controls this chamber. Certainly all the Clerks who have been here since I have been a member of this place-that is, for the last 10 years-have quietly, more or less unobtrusively but nonetheless definitely, kept their thumbs well and truly on the way the Senate operates. A newspaper headline above an article that wrote up the retirement of Alan Cumming Thom read, `Parliament loses a staunch ally'. I think that more accurately that headline should have read that the Senate has lost a staunch ally, because Alan was a man who may well have been an impeccably professional public servant, but above all he was a passionate defender of the institution of the Senate that he has defended and served so loyally for so long. It is fortunate that his replacement, Harry Evans, is equally as fervent, not to say paranoid, about the role of the Senate and its independence in the parliamentary system. Senator Sanders —He is a psychopath. Senator HAINES —Senator Sanders says, `He is a psychopath'. I do not think it is quite that bad, but certainly there is a dedication to the independence of the Senate which I think is very necessary, given the fact that we are on the receiving end of most of the slings and arrows that some people fling around, people who believe that the Senate is nothing more than an obstructive, tiresome place that gets in the way of the elected government being, in effect, a dictatorship. I think it is very important that we have people here on the staff in the Department of the Senate who remind us that we not only have a right to be here, but also that we have a duty to act as if this place is, indeed, the independent chamber that it is. Alan was very effective in his advisory role in the chamber. As a Temporary Chairman of Committees for many years, I was very grateful for the advice that he would give whenever members in this place got slightly out of order-although heaven knows they do not get as out of order as the House of Representatives members apparently do-or when somebody called a point of order. I was as grateful for his advice as I was for the help and assistance I got from an earlier Clerk, Jim Odgers, who was in this Parliament when I first arrived. I approve heartily of the fact that apparently the Department as a farewell gift gave Alan a golf buggy with a seat. I am sure that as he sits and contemplates the quiet of the nineteenth hole he will remember his days here with fondness, but I suspect with very little regret that he is no longer limited to sips of water and a diet of very often tedious debate. We wish him well as I am sure do all senators in his retirement and I hope that he uses the golf buggy frequently. He should keep out of Mary's kitchen since there is nothing worse for many wives than a husband who has been used to a very busy, very active life suddenly intruding on her sphere of activity and I hope that he thinks of us occasionally, but only occasionally. Senator Sanders —That is sexist. Senator HAINES —It is true. It may sound sexist, but I assure the honourable senator that it is true. I would like to wish Tom Wharton and Peter Murdoch well, both of whom have also recently retired. I am sure we will see more of Tom when we move to the new and permanent Parliament House since the advanced information systems which the President mentioned earlier that Tom was responsible for guiding us into will, no doubt, prove more troublesome-or their operators will-than I suspect they are sometimes worth and that Tom, with his connection with the private sector firm that he is currently with, will be called on. I understand the replacements are temporary pending advertisements for the positions, but I would have to say that there are very competent people such as Anne Lynch in this place already who can take over the positions. I think it is unlikely that we will get a plethora of respondents to those advertisements who will be better suited to fill the positions of Tom and Peter, or anybody else who might leave, than those who have grown up with us in this place, who know our idiosyncrasies and who love us despite them, I think. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.14) —I rise to support the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). In doing so, I want to address my remarks almost exclusively to Alan Cumming Thom, although in doing so I take the opportunity, briefly, of congratulating his successor, Harry Evans. I wholly share the views already stated by earlier speakers as to his qualities and abilities. I want also simply to extend my good wishes to Tom Wharton and Mr Murdoch both of whom, however, were much less well known to me than Alan Cumming Thom. I met Alan Cumming Thom 31 years ago when I first came to Canberra in 1956. In those days, Mr President, it may surprise you to know that I was interested not only in the Treasury but also in the game of hockey. I was looking for a hockey team to play for. In 1957 before returning to London and after my return from London in 1961 I played with a team which I think is still known today as the United Hockey Club. I think it is fair to say that at that time Alan Cumming Thom was a stalwart of that club. For those who know anything about the game of hockey it may mean something to them if I say that I played in the position of right full-back. My goalkeeper, the man upon whom finally the responsibility falls if the full-backs are beaten in the last resort, was Alan Cumming Thom. Hockey goalkeepers are a special class of people. They require a blend of qualities and judgment on whether to rush out or to stay back on their goal lines; a cool head and a quick eye; tenacity, of course, the quality of never giving up; and, above all, in the end, courage. I inform the Senate that Alan Cumming Thom had all those qualities in abundance as a hockey goalkeeper. I believe that he maintained those qualities-judgment, a cool head and a quick eye for a coming storm, tenacity in his dealings with not merely the Senate but with those who, as Senator Haines quite rightly pointed out, would perhaps have been less appreciative of the Senate than in his quite proper judgment they should have been and, above all, in the end, courage. As earlier speakers have said, a Clerk of the Senate follows in a famous line. One has only to mention the name of Odgers in connection with Australian Senate Practice to be aware of that. Senators and even Presidents come and go, but Clerks stay here for a long time-indeed, Alan Cumming Thom stayed here in the position of Clerk for only something over five years but, as has been said, his service to the Senate extended much longer than his time as Clerk. Partly for that reason, however-the longevity of service-Clerks become in some sense, and again I think Senator Haines put it very well, custodians for the traditions, the principles and the practices of this place and so it has certainly been for Alan Cumming Thom. I wish him and his wife Mary well in what I hope will be a long life and a very happy retirement. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.17) —I rarely write a reference for anyone. Come to think of it, I am rarely asked to write a reference for anyone. Senator McKiernan —Why is that, Brian? Senator HARRADINE —It probably would not do him any good. But were I to do so for Alan Cumming Thom-it would be really the opposite way around-the first thing that would come to mind would be: Here is a man of the highest integrity. As a matter of fact, about the only time that I did not believe him was earlier this year when he contacted me and said that he was retiring at the age of 60. I asked him, `When is that?' He gave me a date in early February and that was when I frankly found it hard to believe that Alan Cumming Thom was 60 years of age. Not that 60 years of age is very old in any event, but he was a very young looking 60. That was quite extraordinary, given the enormous pressures that Alan Cumming Thom had to withstand over the last couple of years in working on the transfer of the Department of the Senate to the new Parliament House and also in making sure that what occurred in those transfers did not undermine the proper and independent role of the Senate, of the executive government, and of the other chamber of this Parliament, the House of Representatives. I am sure it was not those pressures that led to his retirement. Alan Cumming Thom would very much have desired to be Clerk of the House when we transferred to the place on the hill. What motivated him most was that, first and foremost, he is a family man. That is to his great credit. If those principles were adhered to by those of us remaining, the place would be better. I am not suggesting that if we all thought of our families first and resigned, the place might be better. Senator Haines —It might help if some people did. Senator HARRADINE —That is possibly correct but I am talking about legislation and administrative action. Alan Cumming Thom has a great sense of humour. I agree with what has been said-he was unruffled. There have been a few crises around the place but he was always unruffled and always gave his advice in a well-considered and temperate manner. That was very much appreciated by me. Senator Chaney —He must have had the patience of a saint if he was like that with you. Senator HARRADINE —That is true; but we had something else in common-our Scottish background. He came from Scotland when he was nine years of age. Senator Michael Baume —Did he have an Australian passport? Senator HARRADINE —I do not know. But he displayed a tenaciousness that is characteristic of the Scots. I know that he was very well liked amongst the staff. He had contact with all the staff, not only his senior officials but the whole of the staff of the Department of the Senate. I know that it was one of his great disappointments when a number of the staff had to be located in East Block and he then did not have day to day contact with them. I would like also, as others have done, to mention Tom Wharton and Peter Murdoch. Peter has gone from this place, which is supposed to be making the news, to selling it in a newsagency. I wish him and his wife well in that enterprise. Tom Wharton had also been here for many years. Tom joked that his first job around the place was to clean the inkwells. From cleaning the inkwells to being largely responsible for guiding people in the right direction as to information systems and computer technology is really quite an outstanding performance. No doubt we will see a lot more of Tom, as Senator Haines has said, when we go up to the new Parliament House-and probably before then in his current position. I wish him well. It will be beneficial not only to him but to those of us who work closely with him. Finally, I would like to join with all the Senate in wishing Alan and Mrs Cumming Thom a very successful retirement. Alan Cumming Thom has a great resource of information which should not be left to stagnate. Knowing Alan Cumming Thom, I am sure that it will not stagnate. It will surface somewhere, at some time, and maybe in the not too distant future, if and when consideration may be given to undermining the role of this Senate. I also take the opportunity to congratulate the new Clerk. I am sure that all honourable senators know of the work he has done in presenting written papers in academic and other journals on the role of the Senate, the Parliament, the executive government and so on. Mr President, I believe you made a very good choice in recommending to the Governor-General his appointment as the new Clerk. I see the probable Deputy sitting beside him. I do not know whether it is too soon to congratulate her. I wish Alan Cumming Thom a happy retirement. No doubt we will hear from him. I hope his expertise is made useful in the interests of this institution. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.27) —Alan Cumming Thom has been a friend of mine for almost 40 years, since we played cricket together at Sydney University. That is a little longer than Senator Stone's hockey experiences with him. Alan has a very strong belief in the rights and status of the Senate in the parliamentary process. That strong belief has not always endeared him to every member of every government that has sat here. There have been people sitting in this place who have not been as enamoured of the role of the Senate as Alan Cumming Thom has been all his professional life in this place. As has been said, Alan Cumming Thom certainly is a man of decency, fairness, integrity and, I might say, strong will, particularly in matters of principle to which he was committed. This was also reflected in his style as a cricketer as I knew him in the late 1940s at Sydney University when he was a very competent wicket keeper-a role that tends to keep batsmen honest. It was a role he played with senators with some success as well. As a hockey goalkeeper he was the last line of defence. It was a role he filled here as well in defence of the Senate and what it stands for. I regret that Alan Cumming Thom has not stayed on to help guide us through the problems we face in going up to the new Parliament House, particularly in view of the prospect of some proposed reorganisations, that I hope we do not allow to diminish the status and independence of the Senate. I wish Alan and his wife well in retirement and I wish Harry Evans, his deputy for some period, every success in the job. Mr Evans, in his assistance to all of us, has demonstrated the outstanding ability to see clearly what, to many of us, have been problems that have clouded our vision. I hope that in his new role he will have a very long and successful career. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(9.29) —I would like to place a few words on the record about Alan Cumming Thom from a senator who is new. I suspect that I am speaking for other new senators. When I was duly elected to this place, as a very pleasant introduction, I attended an orientation seminar which was arranged by the Clerk, Mr Alan Cumming Thom, and which included the people we have now become familiar with, the people who now sit here and the people who have just left. It was the kindness, courtesy and information made available to us in every way possible that afforded us the opportunity of becoming effective members of this chamber. Even in the short time I have been a member of this chamber, I have found that the connection and the contact-I use the word `contact' as distinct from the word `acquaintanceship'-that have been established between me and other new senators and the people who serve this place with integrity and belief in its importance, have enabled those people to become more than simply acquaintances. Friendship is something that comes with greater understanding and knowledge of individuals. On this occasion I say to those people who extended those early introductions for new senators: Thank you very much; we are the wiser for having had the benefit of your counsel. I offer my congratulations to those people who are coming on to wear the mantle of that important office. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.31) —I have always had trouble with the term `clerk' because I am a senator of foreign origin and the word reminds me of a person who sells shoes or writes with a quill pen. I am happy that people in my newly adopted country pronounce the word `clerk' differently from the way in which I am accustomed to its being pronounced. Alan Cumming Thom was all the best things that a Clerk in the parliamentary system can be. I have served in State and Federal parliaments. The Clerks are important to the institution of parliament and Cumming Thom certainly cared about the institution of parliament. I have not known him for 31 years; I have never played hockey or rugby with him, but I have taken walks around the lake with him. We enjoyed a few reflective walks. Senator Michael Baume —Now we know why he quit! Senator SANDERS —That was an unfair comment; I am being nice. As we walked around the lake I thought him a very interesting person, not only in the parliamentary sense but also as a man of wide interests. I enjoyed our walks. I hate to use the past tense because it sounds as though he is dead and, of course, he is not. He is very much alive and is probably enjoying himself far more than we are at the moment. It is correct to use the past tense in saying that we walked around the lake, and I hope we can do it again. As Senator Bishop has said, he welcomed new senators into this Parliament. We were all a bit ill at ease about our roles as new senators. We were concerned about what we were meant to do, how we would do it and what official actions we should take. He gently led us through the procedures. He was an honest, friendly person and I appreciate that. Senator Michael Baume —Hear, hear! Senator SANDERS —Senator Baume agrees with that. What is more important for us independents and Australian Democrats is that he was always available-I availed myself of his services-to answer any questions on parliamentary procedure. He always welcomed us and our questions and never made us feel as though we were stupid for not knowing the answers. He was genuinely helpful, as all the Clerks are. Senators who are members of the small parties and Independent senators rely on the Clerks more than senators of the bigger parties, and we are appreciative of what they do for us. I also appreciated the fact that Alan Cumming Thom was always interested or tried to look interested in my speeches. He was often the only person in the whole chamber who was awake. Senator Short —That is very difficult. Senator SANDERS —It may have been difficult and I give him full credit for it. Senator Michael Baume —A generous spirit. Senator SANDERS —He was a generous spirit. He was often the only person who was obviously awake, other than the President. Either he developed a good countenance by which he could sleep with his eyes open, or he was interested. In either case, his attention was a source of great encouragement. I often felt that if he were not there and I were not talking to him I would probably not have talked at all because, as a former university lecturer, I like to talk to an audience. I like to gauge what I am saying in front of an audience. It is difficult to do so in Parliament where the audience is often hostile and one must plough on, which is not good oratory. Alan Cumming Thom will be missed but he is not gone from these chambers and halls of Parliament. He has left an indelible mark through his activities. He has become part of the history of the Senate. He will be missed but he will still be with us. I welcome Harry Evans in his new position. Harry Evans suffered long and hard with the Australian Democrats, helping to draft our amendments and Bills. He served a hard apprenticeship. I am glad that he has been elevated and that his true worth has been recognised in his appointment as Clerk of the Senate. Congratulations to Harry Evans. I am sorry to see Tom Wharton and Peter Murdoch go. I did not know them well but I found them helpful in the dealings I had with them. I hope Alan Cumming Thom has a good time with his new golf cart. I took objection to Senator Haines saying that he should not be allowed in the kitchen. Perhaps he likes to cook and, if so, he should be allowed in the kitchen, regardless of what Senator Haines says. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.36) —I take this opportunity to say a few words of appreciation to Alan Cumming Thom who has just retired as Clerk of the Senate and to indicate how much I appreciated his help and guidance, particularly over the years that I have been one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees. He has always been helpful to me, as have the other Clerks. Quite often it is handy to have the help of the Clerks when one is sitting in the chair. It is even more handy when one can take shorthand, as I can, and write down what they say. So long as I can translate the shorthand correctly, I can deliver the words to the Senate. Senator Sanders —You will have to ask them to speak more slowly. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes, I will have to ask them to speak more slowly sometimes. I was disappointed when I received Alan's letter telling honourable senators that he intended to retire on his 60th birthday. I took the opportunity of telephoning him when I was in my office in Brisbane to tell him that, from my point of view, 60 years of age was a young age at which to retire. He said, `Never mind, you look younger than I do'. That was a very nice compliment he paid me. I asked him what he intended to do and he told me that he would do voluntary work. He said there were lots of opportunities to help other people. I believe that is worth while. I suppose he will play golf and use his wonderful new golf buggy but it is nice to know that he will use some of his time to help others who are less fortunate than he is or we are. I compliment him on that decision. I congratulate the new Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans. Harry Evans has always been very kind and helpful to me when I have needed assistance in the chair. I take this opportunity of wishing Alan and his wife all the very best in their retirement and I am sure they will have many happy years together. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(9.38) —I join the debate on this motion and share some of Senator Bishop's comments about Alan Cumming Thom's shepherding us new boys and girls into the Senate. Alan Cumming Thom was always cheerful, supportive and helpful. Without the benefit of a party machine I have sometimes felt overwhelmed by parliamentary procedures and what to do next but Alan Cumming Thom was always more than willing to set me on the right course. On more than one occasion his advice has prevented me from sticking my foot where it should not go. Perhaps he should have been advising me when I was filling in my nomination form to be a candidate. When I first became a senator and was involved in the orientation courses in which you, Mr President, were also involved, the assistance of Mr Cumming Thom and others was probably the most significant help that I and other senators have had in their passage into this place. Mr Cumming Thom had and still has a good sense of humour but we will no longer have the benefit of it around the corridors of Parliament House. There was always a sparkling wit in his eyes, as if he knew of something that was going on which the rest of us did not know about. As Senator Sanders said, Alan Cumming Thom always seemed very interested in what senators were saying, and I appreciated that. I know that I can also speak for Senator Vallentine, who always appreciated his friendship, friendliness and help. She joins me in wishing Alan and Mrs Cumming Thom a long and successful retirement. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.41) —I join previous speakers in their words of appreciation for the dedicated services to the Senate of Alan Cumming Thom. Alan certainly will be missed by all senators because he was able to bring to the Senate advice that was acceptable to all of us. I suppose, Mr President, only you would know how difficult is that feat. Tonight all senators who have spoken have stressed the assistance and help that Alan has given them over the years. To cap Senator Michael Baume, I first knew Alan 40 years ago before he went to university. My husband was in the college of which his father was principal. It was only when I came to the Senate that I recognised the ability Alan had of being able to put things succinctly, in a completely unbiased fashion and in a way that assisted us all so much. I just want to say thank you to him for all the help that he has given me in the past, and I wish him and his wife a very happy and long retirement. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.42) —I would like to add my words to all the other tributes that have been paid tonight to Alan Cumming Thom. I must admit that when I first came here, he did the same as he has done to every other senator in this place: he gave a very good briefing to new senators. One of the first questions he asked me was what football team I supported. He had an avid interest in all football, whether it be rugby league, rugby union or Australian rules, and he also had a big interest in cricket. One of the good bits of advice he gave me when I first came here was that more people talk themselves out of this place than actually talk themselves into it. I do not know whether that is true of all parliamentarians but it was probably reasonable advice. He also gave me the advice, which I suppose he gave to all parliamentarians, that Parliament House is a lonely place and, if one does not make friends on all sides of the House in all political faiths, it will not be the best place to be in for about 100 days of the year that we spend here. I appreciated those two pieces of advice that he gave me. I thank him for his help and direction in that regard. Others have spoken about his deep affection for the traditions of the Senate, and I believe he will be missed. I think Tom Wharton will also be missed, as will Peter Murdoch. I congratulate Harry Evans on his appointment in taking over. The moment always makes the man, and I am sure that he will go on to get the same tributes as Alan Cumming Thom is getting tonight when he finishes in this job in about another 30 years. I join with others in wishing Alan and Mrs Cumming Thom all the happiness in a well-earned retirement. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.44) —I would like to say thank you to Alan Cumming Thom for the years of service he gave to me, to the Senate and above all to the institution of the Parliament of Australia. At this stage of the night I do not propose to repeat the virtues of the former Clerk, but I can say that his hallmark was the supreme professional approach that he brought to the discharge of his duties here as Clerk. He was absolutely devoted to the best interests of the Senate as an institution, and we saw that here. What we did not see in this chamber was his fearless defence of the place of the Senate within the Parliament in the subterranean but eternal war-as you, Mr President, would know very well-which we fight with the forces of darkness at the other end of the building when the House of Representatives continually tries to use its greater numbers to overwhelm and hammer the Senate into oblivion. Alan Cumming Thom was a great supporter of the place of the Senate as a place of parity with the House of Representatives. As a Deputy Chairman, I saw him in a closer light than perhaps as a senator. I always found his advice to be impartial, objective and meticulously correct. In passing, I also note the great service of Tom Wharton and Peter Murdoch. I wish all three well in their future careers. I congratulate Harry Evans in his incoming role as the Clerk of the Senate. I am sure that he will carry on the fine traditions of impartiality and service to the institution that we have seen from his predecessors. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.46) —I want to briefly join the remarks of my colleagues from both sides of the chamber in thanking Peter Murdoch, Tom Wharton and particularly Alan Cumming Thom for their service to us all over a long number of years. If one adds those years of service together, they probably amount to not much less than three-quarters of a century. I would also like to congratulate Harry Evans on his appointment as Clerk of the Senate. I thank him for all the work he has done on our behalf in the past few years, and in fact many years for the Senate as a whole, and to wish him well for the future. I did not know Peter Murdoch very well, but in the short time that he and I have been here together, I noted that he was a very professional officer. He has decided to go into the world of the entrepreneur and has taken over a newsagency. I wish him well in that career. Tom Wharton has been with the Senate for more than 20 years and he will be a very significant loss to us all. My association with Tom Wharton goes back to his father. I knew his father for many years in the Treasury before meeting Tom Wharton Junior. Tom Wharton Senior was a very fine officer of the Public Service-one of the old guard of the Public Service. He really regarded the traditions of the Public Service as very important not only for the Public Service itself but also for the whole of Australia. I think Tom Wharton Junior carried on those traditions and values. They are values that we all should take into account because I have a great fear that they are slipping rapidly in this country, and that will not do any of us any good. Tom has also gone out into the world of business and computer machines. He was of great assistance to us here with his knowledge of computers, and the work that he did will significantly show itself when we move with the new information systems to the new Parliament House. I venture to suggest, having seen Tom Wharton Junior at first hand in some of the work that he was doing with computer contracts and so on in this chamber, that he did much to put us on the straight and narrow in terms of the right sorts of computer systems that we ought to have. There have been some major hiccups over the past two or three years and Tom was involved in sorting them out at the end. I wish Alan Cumming Thom all the very best. He has made a great contribution to the Senate. My own personal knowledge of Alan does not go back as far as that of Senator Michael Baume or Senator Stone, but it goes back a fair way, to 1964 when I first came here and had an association with this building as private secretary to the late Harold Holt. In those days Harold Holt was the Treasurer and of course we had a great deal of tick-tacking between the two chambers because of ministerial representation in this place. Alan Cumming Thom's work in the Senate was very important even in those days although he was a much less senior officer than of course he ended up being. Our association goes back that far. It was with great satisfaction that I noted his progression through the ranks of the Department of the Senate to the head of that Department, and I admired the achievements that he made because he, like the Wharton family, was part and parcel of a very great tradition of public service which I wonder whether this country will ever see again. If we do not, we will all be the losers. I envy Alan because of his opportunity now to get around the golf course with his new buggy, and I join other speakers tonight in wishing him a very happy not retirement but new phase in his life. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(9.51) —This is the first time in my 10 years here that I have spoken on the retirement of any of our Senate officers. It is with pleasure that I join with all my colleagues in commending the work of Alan Cumming Thom, Peter Murdoch and Tom Wharton. They were all here 10 years ago when I came on board and when Mr Odgers was Clerk. Alan Cumming Thom was the fourth Clerk of the Senate since then, and he has lived up to the best traditions and service of his predecessors. I feel a special debt to Alan Cumming Thom because he gave so much advice to us and he was always cheerful. He was a human, friendly and clear assistant to all of us in the chamber. Not only did I, in particular, welcome his advice, in my role as a Deputy Chairman of Committees over the last six months, but we especially valued his work in the committee system. He served as a committee secretary more than 25 years ago, when the Senate had select committees but before the committee system was well established. Whenever we have sought to review the committee system his experience and his commitment to the opportunities we should provide for Senate committees has been most appreciated. I recall the same of Peter Murdoch and Tom Wharton. Not only have we received the benefit of their advice in the chamber and on the committee system but also we have received that advice in our offices, in the corridors and in their offices. We received background advice with regard to legislation and the procedures of the Senate. As I say, they were professional, clear and cheerful. The sense of humour that all three of them had was infectious and added a great deal to the quality of relations that we had with each other here in this chamber. I should add that Peter Murdoch and Tom Wharton were both Aussie rules footballers here in the Australian Capital Territory and on a couple of occasions some years ago we organised Senate v. House of Representatives football matches for the Governor-General's Cup. I can remember being one of the players, and I was proud to see that two of the best of our players making up the numbers on the Senate side were Peter Murdoch and Tom Wharton. I would like to think that the qualities of the relationships they experienced in Australian football when they were young played a major part in the continuing cheerfulness and good humour they had and in the team approach that they took in the Senate. I conclude by referring again to Alan Cumming Thom. It was with surprise that I learned of his resignation. I thought he would be with us for another 10 years, but that just shows how we can be taken by surprise here in the Senate. I wish him, Peter and Tom every success over the years. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.55) —I will not keep the Senate long but I wish to join with other senators who have spoken on the contributions made to the Senate by Alan Cumming Thom, Peter Murdoch and Tom Wharton. The resignation of the Clerk of the Senate at this particular time is certainly understandable. It seems to me that with our move to the new Parliament House a vast amount of work will have to be done in terms of policy decisions and so on, and fairly obviously the Clerk felt that it may well be better to have a new person take up that role so that the next three, four or five years of settling in that will be needed in the new Parliament House can be supervised by one person. I have operated in this chamber as a Whip for all the time I have been here, so I have had a close working relationship with the Clerks in the day to day business of the chamber. One of the things that strikes me most about the Clerks of the Senate is that one cannot call them typical public servants-a phrase often used outside the Parliament in denigration. The Clerks are expected to respond immediately to matters and put a new plan of action into place, or a new program, at the press of a button or at the whim of one of the parties. They have always to my knowledge done that with alacrity and good will, and I think that their operations as the bureaucracy, as it were, of the Parliament mean that we are able to function in what must seem to a lot of people outside to be a highly erratic fashion. I had many discussions with Alan Cumming Thom over the years about policy and his views about the Senate, and certainly I appreciated greatly the depth of understanding he had of the operation of the Senate as a chamber within the parliamentary structure. Tom Wharton, of course, contributed greatly, certainly in the last two or three years, to the upgrading of members' functions in this Parliament House by being the person at the end of the line with regard to the computerisation of the parliamentary offices-a task he threw himself into wholeheartedly. He rapidly managed to learn the jargon and come to understand in detail the operations of the systems. That has been borne out by the fact that a very large computer company in Australia wants him to head up its operations in Canberra, which of course is so vitally important to all computer companies because of government contracts. I am sure we will be seeing Tom around in his new capacity, in business, and I think he will still be able to make a very worthwhile and significant contribution by assisting the Parliament in its day to day operations vis-a-vis the government of this country. I worked with Peter Murdoch for quite some time when he was the Clerk Assistant (Table Office) and, as one needs to work very closely with that particular Clerk in the establishment of the day to day patterns of the program of this chamber, it always struck me how efficiently, effectively and conscientiously but, as it were, in an unflustered way he was able to do his work. I think everybody who came into contact with him struck that. One saw the very smooth operation of any task that he undertook. The Senate has lost three very efficient and effective officers employed in the support of its work. We are thankful that we have with us still a core of very experienced officers, and hopefully those who will replace the people we have lost will come very rapidly to learn their job and be able to provide the type of top quality support that we have come to expect from officers of this chamber. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(9.59) —I will be brief, as is fitting because my acquaintance with Alan Cumming Thom and Tom Wharton was brief. I do feel that I ought to attach myself to the sentiments already expressed, for a number of reasons. I must say it is nice to be once again in the Senate that we all know and love after the exciting hour or so we spent earlier tonight. We have slipped back into our normal mode. Although I have been in Canberra for a very short time my acquaintanceship with the staff of the Senate predated my actually becoming a senator as the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has been the beneficiary of two ex-members of the Senate staff. I must say that they have provided an extraordinary degree of professionalism. I think everyone in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly would agree with that. I refer to Ian McNeill and Guy Smith. There is no question of the strength of the old boys network which the Clerks at the table belong to. It is an international network but it works fairly well in Australia. As a result of the time that I spent with Guy Smith when I was Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory in the Legislative Assembly I got to know Alan Cumming Thom particularly prior to coming here. As others have said, being a member of staff of Parliament, particularly a senior member of staff, is not an easy job. Staff are often the subject of criticism from one side of the House or the other. Obviously some of it at times would be justified; a lot of it is not. I imagine that is the case in any parliament; it certainly was the case in the one that I came from. Clerks and senior members of staff particularly are expected to perform nevertheless with absolute impartiality. Of course, it would be presumptuous of me, in view of my short time here, to speak other than of my experience with Tom Wharton and Alan Cumming Thom who were the only two people I knew of the three who resigned. Alan Cumming Thom was kind enough to write to me to tell me of his resignation. Tom Wharton also contacted me. I appreciated their doing so. I was not surprised when Tom Wharton contacted me because we share a common passion; that is, computers and information technology. I say that unblushingly. Tom Wharton was both a dedicated and a highly skilled person when he left here in terms of information systems that are available. He was the first one to admit that he did not know much about them when he arrived here but there is no question that one has to be interested in that sort of thing to be good at it and he was good at it. I have no doubt that Tom Wharton will be highly successful in his new profession and I certainly wish him well. Despite the short time that I have been here, I have had what I consider to be a valued relationship with both Alan Cumming Thom and Tom Wharton. I heard Senator Teague say something about Alan Cumming Thom which is absolutely true: he was one of these dreadful people that are always cheerful, helpful and kind to others. In fact, everything I am not, he is. It was always helpful not only to be given good advice but also to be given it with the kind of friendly and open personality of Alan Cumming Thom. It was commented that a large influx of new senators-an unprecedented number in one hit-came to this chamber last year. I remember with gratitude-I am sure all the other new senators do too-the help that all the Senate staff were to us as new people. I refer particularly to the very personal welcome we got from Alan Cumming Thom. I have no doubt that Harry Evans, who has a solid reputation for being across the procedures of this chamber, will more than adequately fill the shoes of Alan Cumming Thom and will continue the proud tradition of Clerks at the table. As I said, it is not only a national institution; it is an international institution in all the parliaments that follow largely the British system. I join with others-I do not think it is too presumptuous-to say that as well as wishing both Alan and the other two members of staff who have resigned from the Senate staff all the best I wish Harry Evans all the best in his new role as Clerk of this chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the time for presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children be extended to 26 May 1988. The Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children was established on 22 September last year to complete the inquiry on the education of gifted and talented children. That inquiry had been commenced by the former Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. The Senate directed the Select Committee to report on or before the first day of sitting in 1988. The Committee met on 8 October to review the evidence that had been gathered and to consider the contents for the proposed report. After that meeting, work commenced on a draft report. Where necessary, evidence was updated and additional information was obtained. A chairman's draft report was forwarded to Committee members last week. I propose to call a meeting at an early date to consider this draft. Because the Committee is unable to report today, I seek an extension of time for the Committee to report. Although I anticipate that the report will be completed before the end of the Autumn session, I have been advised that I should seek to have the reporting date extended to 26 May 1988. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Stone)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Sheil for a period of two weeks from 16 February 1988 on account of ill health. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In the brief five minutes allotted to me on this subject I would like to say several things. I believe this report and the activities of the Advance Australia Foundation raise a lot of wider issues that I believe this chamber ought to take account of in the future and I will certainly be trying to ensure that it does. The first is that whilst welcoming the report of the Advance Australia Foundation I therefore welcome the work that it is doing under its charter. The objectives of the Foundation are to heighten community awareness of Australia and Australian skills achievement and potential; secondly, to highlight the role of the individual in the economy; and, thirdly, to encourage improvements in quality, design, marketing and other characteristics of Australian industry. Whilst I agree with those objectives, I believe several points need to be made. The first one is that the Foundation is a statutory body and therefore its financial activities are very relevant to this Parliament. Therefore, in that context it is very important to note that the report that has been tabled today which we are considering shows that the Advance Australia Foundation, which is a company limited by guarantee and incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory, in the year ending 30 June 1987 incurred a deficit of $339,594. That is a tenfold increase on the deficit for the previous year, the year ended 30 June 1986, when the deficit was $33,313. It should also be noted that the company is exempt from paying income tax. Again, that is normal for this sort of activity, but it does involve the use of taxpayers' money. The deficit has increased and there has been an exemption from paying income tax. Those are matters, I believe, that we need to consider further at an appropriate time. Paragraph 8 on page 5 of the report reads: At the first birthday of the Australian Made campaign, the Prime Minister . . . announced that the Federal Government would financially underwrite the advertising of the Australian Made campaign in the 1987-88 financial year. In view of this undertaking it is expected that revenue generated from licensing will again increase in the forthcoming financial year. If the Government uses taxpayers' funds to underwrite such a campaign, that is only to be expected. These are some financial matters that will need to be looked at, particularly in view of allegations that have been made that the Advance Australia Foundation has given a discriminatory, privileged position to John Singleton Advertising in relation to the advertising campaign that is associated with the Advance Australia Foundation. Time does not permit me to go into all the details of that matter tonight. Some very serious allegations have been made by bodies that have been disadvantaged by the privileged position of John Singleton Advertising. Those matters will have to be looked at and I will certainly raise them again in this place. In the 60 seconds remaining to me, I raise the fact that if one looks at this report, one will see that it is great in terms of the green and gold. Its cover depicts a kangaroo. If it really concerns the advancement of Australia, I am very surprised and, I must say, disgusted that no recognition is given by this organisation to our national flag and our national colours of red, white and blue that are depicted on the flag. It would appear to be part of an ongoing attempt by Government agencies, backed by the Government, to introduce insidiously into this country a change in our national symbols. Senator Michael Baume —To the South African colours. Senator SHORT —To the South African colours-the colours that South Africa has had as its national colours since 1895. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report is an example of the manner in which this Government stands over and harasses independent statutory organisations which dare to challenge the Government's position and which dare to oppose the Government's policies. This body believed that the Government's policies were disastrous for the businesses that are under the aegis of the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board. Last year I pointed out to the Senate that this Board attacked the Government's capital gains tax policy. It stated: The Board continues to hold a strong view that the development of a large and vital venture capital industry in Australia will be seriously jeopardised while such a high capital gains tax exists. It continued: The Board predicts that the proposed capital gains tax will favour investments in inflation-paced activities and seriously retard the growth of the venture capital industry. Of course, that was proved to be absolutely right in the stock market boom which ended in the collapse in October. The Board stated: Since an MIC's profit is incurred by realised capital gains, the very existence of the present capital gains tax mitigates strongly against the raising of additional funds outside the Program in its present immature state. The Board believes that the present capital gains tax is the most substantial factor mitigating against the success of the Program, as investment in venture capital aspires to compete for investment dollars. That slamming attack on the Government's capital gains tax was contained in last year's annual report. What happened? This Government then announced a review of the program administered by this Board. An inquiry was held by the Bureau of Industry Economics at the instigation of this Government. Of course, that Bureau recommended that this program terminate on 30 June this year. The Board objected strongly to that finding and, as a result, the Government said that it would allow it to continue until June next year. This occurred in the face of the Board's request that the program should continue until at least 1991. In its 1986-87 report the Board stated: It was and is the Board's view that a review in 1987 or even 1988 was premature because of the long term nature of the Program investments and that any study was likely to produce indeterminate results. Of course, it is not surprising that the Board should believe that the Government's recently announced policy to continue the management and investment companies program until at least June 1989 is inadequate to meet the Government's objectives for venture capital. As I said, it is a clear piece of evidence of the standover tactics used by this Government if one of these independent bodies dares to disagree, as this Board did publicly, with a Government policy-on capital gains tax, in this case-which is basically to the disadvantage of companies in this developing venture capital area. This intrigues me, in particular, when I look at appendix E to this annual report, which states: No directions were given by the Minister to the Board during the year. I do not think that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) had to give directions to the Board for it not to repeat its criticism of the capital gains tax of last year. There is no repetition in this report of last year's criticism of the capital gains tax. I would not be at all surprised if the nod and wink was given to the Board that, `if you repeat that criticism there is no chance that you will get even an extension of time until June 1989'. This totally inadequate extension-if, in fact, these new venture capital projects are to be successfully backed by this Government-indicates that there is no doubt whatsoever that the nod and the wink was given that, `if you repeat your criticism you will not get an extension'. These kinds of standover tactics are intolerable. I believe that there is every ground for a proper inquiry and I will certainly be seeking to raise this matter again when there is more time to discuss it. I believe that what has happened is absolutely scandalous. There is a clear determination by this Government to bring to an end the effectiveness of this Board simply because it dared to challenge this Government's crazy program on capital gains tax which cuts across the very objectives that this Board was set up by the Government to bring into effect. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is an important contribution to the ongoing debate about environmental matters in Australia. It gives the opportunity to raise a couple of matters which are of concern about the administration of the Authority and of the reef in general. The report that we have this year is a particularly good one. I pay tribute to Graeme Kelleher, the Chairman of the Marine Park Authority. I also note that Mr Kelleher will be starting a two-year term as president of the body in Australia which represents the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources which plays an important role in relation to the international obligations which Australia has under the World Heritage convention and a number of other related international arrangements. The second point to make is that the report draws attention to some of the continuing problems, particularly in terms of the research program related to the crown of thorns starfish. At the ANZAAS conference, which took place in August 1987, a number of papers were presented dealing with the control of the crown of thorns starfish. A very important plea was made by Professor Endean regarding the control of spearfishing on the Great Barrier Reef, in the belief that the activities of spearfishermen are killing those native inhabitants of the reef which play a vital role in the biological control of the crown of thorns starfish. Professor Endean's comments were supported-although not entirely on the same basis-by Dr Leon Zann of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in a paper which he published in the Bulletin of Marine Science which deals with the way in which biological controls are the preferable method of dealing with the crown of thorns starfish, the continuing debate about the cyclical nature of the infestation and whether one is looking at a natural phenomenon or at a phenomenon which is substantially influenced by the way in which human activity on the reef prejudices the continued safety and security of the reef. The other point I wish to raise and on which I believe the Government needs to provide some information to the Parliament is in relation to the proposal advanced, as I understand it, by interests associated with Mr Kerry Packer, one of this Government's closest big business supporters, for the development of the Magnetic Keys operation which may well intrude into the area which is designated as part of the marine park. The development which is proposed, as I understand it, would include work being undertaken within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. As a result there would be some obligation on the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, to make clear whether or not permission would be granted from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for the work to proceed. The involvement of the Commonwealth would include steps that ought to be taken to assess this proposal under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. There may be a third element in terms of necessary approvals from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) under the Foreign Investment Review Board's powers to grant approvals to activities taking place which otherwise come within its jurisdiction. As I said, the report raises many important matters. It raises the question of the future of the dugong populations and the research work which I know Dr Helen Marsh and others have done in relation to those populations. This is an important report. It draws attention to a number of matters to which the Parliament ought to direct its attention. I congratulate the Marine Park Authority on the production of this annual report and on raising a number of matters which ought to be of concern to those who have a genuine interest in issues of environmental management and control. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.23) —I will confine my remarks to the paper presently before us, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority annual report. In doing so I draw attention to the history of the creation of this marine park and remind honourable senators that when the park was proposed the proposal came under considerable opposition from a number of quarters-for example, from those who would like to mine in this area. There were proposals for oil rigs to drill for oil on the reef. There were proposals for mining the limestone of which the reef is composed. Considerable opposition also came from the Queensland Government at the time. I was heartened to hear Senator Puplick praise the activity and work that the Marine Park Authority has done and its annual report. Here we see a very good expression of what can be achieved in the way of both wildlife protection and tourist development. Undoubtedly, in the long run the protection of this magnificent world class area from oil drilling and from mining and its development as a tourist area will both protect the environment and produce a much bigger financial return. There are certainly problems with the reef. Senator Puplick has mentioned the problems of the dugong populations. The annual report notes that Australia now has the largest population of dugongs in the world, indicating the success, at least with respect to this species, of the park. I note also in the report that the Authority has been successful with the creation of its on-shore aquarium. That development was brought in on time and on budget and is now a very successful tourist attraction which significantly takes the visitor pressure off the reef itself. When the next report comes before us I would like to draw some parallels between that report and this one. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.27) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Again, the report of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is a report of considerable significance. The report draws attention to a number of matters. In the few minutes which are available to me I wish to raise only one of them. The report deals in part with the work of the National Parks and Wildlife Service as it relates to the International Whaling Commission. I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to the quite scandalous behaviour of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) in attempting to lean on the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare to re-open its investigation on the question of the control of cetacea in captivity. This is a matter on which the Senate Committee on Animal Welfare, under the chairmanship of the former Senator Georges, produced a report. That report was discussed in the Senate in March 1986. We still have no response from the Government on this matter. We have waited virtually two years for the Government to respond. As I have said on a previous occasion, the way in which this Government is behaving is scandalous. Just because it happens to be our bicentennial year the Government thinks that we are prepared to wait around for 200 years before it gives us a report on its response to this significant Senate inquiry. What happened was that a major proponent of the extensive keeping of cetacea in captivity met with Senator Richardson in December 1987. Senator Richardson then tried to lean on the Select Committee on Animal Welfare to re-open its inquiry into the keeping of cetacea in captivity. I am glad to say that when the Committee met, I think last week, it unanimously rejected the attempt of the Minister to have the inquiry re-opened. It is a matter of some significance that the Senate Committee was prepared to take that stand. I congratulate it on doing so. It is certainly, within the purview of the Opposition, an important report. I have already stated a view on this matter. We have clearly indicated that we do not want this inquiry to be re-opened. What we want is a statement from the Government as to its intention. The fact that the proponent of the keeping of cetacea in captivity was able to go on radio in Adelaide on 8 January and announce that the Senate would re-open the inquiry-presumably on the basis of assurances which he had had from the Minister-is a matter of some profound regret. I am glad to see that the Minister was rebuffed by the Committee-indeed, rebuffed by the Labor members of the Committee. It is now clearly his responsibility to come forward with a statement indicating what the Government's response to this Senate Committee report is. A large number of other significant matters are dealt with in the annual report of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, including the question of the exploitation of the resources of Kakadu National Park and the question of kangaroo management, which again is a matter before the Senate Committee. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 5) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 September 1987: (1) Which banks have complied with Income Tax sub-regulation 11 (2) in each of the last 10 years. (See answer to Question on Notice No. 569, Hansard, 8 May 1986, p. 2716). (2) If some banks have not complied, what action has been taken as a consequence. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As explained in the answer to the senator's previous question on this subject, the Commissioner of Taxation had set certain thresholds for the reporting by banks of information on interest payments. Within those thresholds, all banks have complied with the reporting regulations for the 1985 and 1986 income years. Prior to the 1985 income year some banks had not fully reported in respect of all types of interest payments made. For the 1987 and later income years, the thresholds have been removed, and full reporting is expected. (2) To ensure full compliance, the Australian Taxation Office has put in place a monitoring system and undertakes close liaison with the banks. (Question No. 15) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: What plans for: (a) evacuation; (b) protection; or (c) post attack relief existed for inhabited places within a 100 km radius of (i) naval communications station Harold E. Holt, (ii) the Joint Defence Space Research Facility and (iii) the Joint Defence Space Communications Station as at (A) 30 June 1964; (B) 30 June 1966; (C) 30 June 1968; (D) 30 June 1970; (E) 30 June 1972; (F) 30 June 1974; (G) 30 June 1976; (H) 30 June 1978; (I) 30 June 1980; (J) 30 June 1982; (K) 30 June 1984; (L) 30 June 1986; and 30 June 1987, or the date of preparation of the answer to question. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On the basis of all the intelligence available, successive Australian Governments have reached the judgement that the risk of global nuclear conflict is very low. Accordingly, plans such as those referred to in the question have not attracted high priority. The present government takes the view that the joint Australian/US defence facilities continue to contribute to global strategic stability, and that, as a consequence, the risk of nuclear conflict remains very low. Nevertheless, the government acknowledges that the joint facilities carry some risk of being attacked in the unlikely event of nuclear war, and has initiated civil defence planning to that end, in full co-operation with the relevant State and Territory Authorities. The Commonwealth has made available to State and Territory emergency services a study on the risks and consequences of nuclear attack on the joint defence facilities so that appropriate planning measures can be developed. With respect to the time periods specified in the question, it should be noted that the Harold E. Holt Naval Communication Station did not become operational until 1967, the Joint Defence Space Research Facility until 1970 and the Joint Defence Space Communications Station until 1971. (Question No. 16) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Will the Minister bring up-to-date the information contained in the answers to Senate Questions 2962 (13 October 1982), 2957 and 2964 (19 October 1982), 2965 (21 October 1982), 2959 (27 October 1982), 2956 (10 November 1982) and 2958 (19 November 1982). Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The tables on defence expenditure provided to Senator Tate (Senate Questions 2962, on Defence Force personnel numbers, 2957, 2958 and 2959 on Defence expenditure, 2964 on Defence Equipment and Stores and 2956 on Military Research and Development) have been updated, including any revisions necessary to the data in the years prior to 1982-83. The caveats applied to the previous tables are in all cases still relevant. Revisions to text and tables have been necessary in the light of revisions to index series, functional classifications and new data. Senate Question No. 2965 on Importation of Military Equipment was previously answered by the then Treasurer and accordingly has been forwarded to my colleague, the Treasurer, for his consideration and response. Senate Question No. 2962 (13 October 1982)-updated: (1) What has been the total number of: (a) civilian personnel; and (b) personnel in each of the Naval, Military and Air Forces in each year since 1969-70. (2) What proportion have total civilian and uniformed defence personnel been of the total labour force in each financial year since 1969-70. The answer is contained in the following table: DEFENCE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS 1969-1988 AND RELATIONSHIP TO CIVILIAN LABOUR FORCE End Financial Year Civilian Personnel (a) Volunteer Uniformed Personnel Navy Army Air Force National Service- men Total Personnel % of Civilian Labour Force (b) 1969-70 ... 33,289 17,089 28,305 22,642 16,208 117,533 2.15 1970-71 ... 34,346 16,997 28,107 22,539 15,662 117,651 2.09 1971-72 ... 34,871 16,890 28,326 22,720 11,947 114,754 2.01 1972-73 ... 36,008 17,215 31,151 22,717 2,839 109,930 1.88 1973-74 ... 32,663 16,141 30,197 21,119 38 100,158 1.66 1974-75 ... 31,415 16,094 31,514 21,546 - 100,569 1.64 1975-76 ... 30,538 15,993 31,430 21,351 - 99,312 1.59 1976-77 ... 30,336 16,390 31,988 21,703 - 100,417 1.57 1977-78 ... 30,123 16,298 31,883 21,689 - 99,993 1.57 1978-79 ... 29,468 16,582 31,813 21,803 - 99,666 1.55 1979-80 ... 29,316 16,961 32,321 22,249 - 100,847 1.52 1980-81 ... 29,182 17,298 32,898 22,322 - 101,700 1.51 1981-82 ... 29,049 (c)...17,598 32,876 22,711 - 102,234 1.50 1982-83 ... 23,628 (d)...17,198 33,072 22,512 - 96,410 1.39 1983-84 ... 23,485 16,692 32,278 22,672 - 95,127 1.33 1984-85 ... 38,271 (e)...16,059 32,460 22,863 - 109,653 1.51 1985-86 ... 38,102 15,538 31,834 22,677 - 108,151 1.44 1986-87 ... 36,357 15,803 32,311 22,647 - 107,118 1.39 1987-88 (f) ... 36,223 .3...15,657 31,746 22,612 - 106,238 .3...N.Y.A. Notes: (a) Excludes locally engaged civilians supporting military deployment overseas. (b) Civilian Labour Force is the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimate for June of each year. (c) For comparability with earlier data, the 1981-82 civilian personnel strength shows actual strength plus 9,694 personnel transferred to the Department of Defence Support after the creation of that Department on 7 May 1982. (d) Includes 4,263 Defence Science and Technology Organisation personnel transferred from the Department of Defence Support on 11 March 1983. (e) Includes 14,982 personnel transferred from the Department of Defence Support during 1984-85. (f) (i) Civilian personnel figures relate to full-time operative (Budget 1987-88) average staff levels. (ii) Uniform personnel figures relate to 1987-88 Budget Average Authorised Strengths. (iii) N.Y.A. not yet available. Senate Question No. 2957 (19 October 1982)-updated: (1) What proportion of total defence outlays has been made: (a) in Australia; and (b) overseas in each year since 1969-70. (1) Details of defence expenditure overseas are not readily available prior to 1970-71. The proportions as published in annual Defence Reports together with the estimates for 1987-88 are as follows: Year Proportion of Defence Expenditure (a) Australia (b) Overseas % % 1970-71 ... 82.4 17.6 1971-72 ... 86.6 13.4 1972-73 ... 87.1 12.9 1973-74 ... 90.9 9.1 1974-75 ... 92.5 7.5 1975-76 ... 89.9 10.1 1976-77 ... 85.0 15.0 1977-78 ... 85.7 14.3 1978-79 ... 83.8 16.2 1979-80 ... 82.2 17.8 1980-81 ... 83.3 16.7 1981-82 ... 88.9 11.1 1982-83 ... 83.5 16.5 1983-84 ... 79.7 20.3 1984-85 ... 75.7 24.3 1985-86 ... 75.8 24.2 1986-87 ... 77.3 22.7 Senate Question No. 2958 (19 November 1982)-updated: (1) What has been the real level of Australian defence expenditure in 1981-82 prices since 1945-46. (2) What deflator has been used for calculating these figures. (3) Is a deflator calculated specifically for defence outlays for any part of the period since 1945-46; if so, how is that deflator calculated and what has it been for the period for which it has been calculated. (1) and (2) In 1973-74 the Government introduced a Functional classification approach to national accounting which emphasised presentation of receipts and expenditure according to their purpose. Previous receipts and expenditures were reclassified back to 1964-65 and comparable Defence figures were only available from that year. In most of the budgets since 1981-82 there have been further minor reclassifications made and figures back to 1972-73 have been adjusted. Therefore, there are some small discrepancies between the figures from 1964-65 to 1971-72 and those from 1972-73 to 1986-87. The following table shows defence outlays since 1964-65 (as reported in Budget Papers No. 1), a price deflator as measured by the implicit price deflator for Non-Farm Gross Domestic Product using 1981-82 as the base and defence outlays in 1981-82 prices. Year (1) Actual Defence Outlay (2) Price Deflator 1981- 82 = 100 (3) Defence Outlay In 1981-82 Prices (4) $m $m 1964-65 ... 583 24.0 2429 1965-66 ... 711 24.9 2855 1966-67 ... 912 25.7 3549 1967-68 ... 1065 26.9 3959 1968-69 ... 1100 28.0 3929 1969-70 ... 1044 29.6 3527 1970-71 ... 1091 31.2 3497 1971-72 ... 1157 33.2 3485 1972-73 ... 1225 35.4 3460 1973-74 ... 1304 40.3 3236 1974-75 ... 1599 49.2 3250 1975-76 ... 1821 57.3 3178 1976-77 ... 2149 63.8 3368 1977-78 ... 2340 69.1 3386 1978-79 ... 2568 73.7 3484 1979-80 ... 2965 81.0 3660 1980-81 ... 3490 89.6 3895 1981-82 ... 4054 100.0 4054 1982-83 ... 4701 111.0 4235 1983-84 ... 5298 119.5 4433 1984-85 ... 5938 127.1 4672 1985-86 ... 6674 136.2 4900 1986-87 ... 7209 147.1 4901 NB: This methodology differs from that used in Budget Statement No. 3 to determine a real growth for Defence Outlays. Budget State No. 3 assesses real growth each year relative to the achievement in the previous year and excludes certain items of Defence Outlays such as DFRDB payments and compensation. (3) A consistent series of implicit price deflators for Defence expenditure is not available. Assessments of real growth in defence outlays are made each year relative to the achievement in the previous year. When a lengthy continuous series is required such as that to answer this question the Gross Non-Farm Implicit Price Deflator (GNFIPD) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics is used to convert Defence expenditure to constant price dollars, normally based in 1979-80 prices. The GNFIPD is, of course, also the basis of the tables in the Budget documents. Senate Question No. 2959 (27 October 1982)-updated: (1) What have been the total outlays on defence in each financial year since 1945-46. (2) What has been the proportion of total defence outlays in total budget outlays in each year since 1945-46. (3) What has been the proportion of total defence outlays to Gross Domestic Product in each financial year since 1945-46. (1), (2) and (3): In 1973-74 the Government introduced a Functional Classification approach to national accounting which emphasised presentation of receipts and expenditure according to their purpose. Previous receipts and expenditures were reclassified back to 1964-65 and comparable Defence figures were only available from that year. In most of the budgets since 1981-82, there have been further minor reclassifications made and figures back to 1972-73 have been adjusted. Therefore, there are some small discrepancies between the figures from 1964-65 to 1971-72 and those from 1972-73 to 1986-87. The following table shows Defence outlays (as reported in Budget Papers No. 1) and Defence outlays as a proportion of total Budget outlays and Gross Domestic Product for each year since 1964-65. Year Defence Outlay Defence Outlay as a proportion of Budget Outlays Defence Outlay as a proportion of GDP $m % % 1964-65... 583 12.9 2.9 1965-66... 711 14.1 3.3 1966-67... 912 16.2 3.9 1967-68... 1065 17.1 4.2 1968-69... 1100 16.6 3.9 1969-70... 1044 14.2 3.3 1970-71... 1091 13.5 3.1 1971-72... 1157 12.9 3.0 1972-73... 1225 12.2 2.8 1973-74... 1304 10.9 2.6 1974-75... 1599 9.2 2.7 1975-76... 1821 8.5 2.6 1976-77... 2149 9.1 2.6 1977-78... 2340 8.9 2.6 1978-79... 2568 9.0 2.6 1979-80... 2965 9.6 2.6 1980-81... 3490 9.7 2.6 1981-82... 4054 9.8 2.7 1982-83... 4701 9.6 2.8 1983-84... 5298 9.4 2.8 1984-85... 5938 9.3 2.9 1985-86... 6674 9.5 2.9 1986-87... 7209 9.6 2.8 Senate Question No. 2964 (19 October 1982)-updated: (1) What proportion of expenditure on defence equipment and stores has been made: (a) in Australia; and (b) overseas in each financial year since 1969-70. (1) Details of defence expenditure overseas are not readily available prior to 1970-71. The proportions of defence expenditure of equipment and stores made in Australia and overseas as published in the annual Defence Reports together with the estimate for 1987-88 are as follows: Year Proportion of Defence Expenditure on Equipment and Stores Australia Overseas % % 1970-71... 56.7 43.3 1971-72... 65.8 34.2 1972-73... 61.2 38.8 1973-74... 64.1 35.9 1974-75... 64.1 35.9 1975-76... 56.0 44.0 1976-77... 43.1 56.9 1977-78... 47.3 52.7 1978-79... 46.2 53.8 1979-80... 47.5 52.5 1980-81... 50.4 49.6 1981-82... 64.0 36.0 1982-83... 50.2 49.8 1983-84... 42.9 57.1 1984-85... 37.5 62.5 1985-86... 38.5 61.5 1986-87... 44.4 55.6 NB: The above proportions include expenditures on capital equipment and replacement equipment and stores for the Defence Forces, the Defence Central administration and other Departments where applicable. Recurrent expenditures on Repair and Overhaul of Equipment are excluded, as are capital expenditures in respect of the B707 aircraft. Senate Question No. 2956 (10 November 1986)-updated: (1) What has been the total level of military research and development expenditure in each financial year since 1975-76. (2) Can this military research and development expenditure be categorised; if so, what categories and how much is being spent on each type of activity in each year since 1975-76. (1) Expenditure on military research and development since 1975-76 is estimated as follows: Year Expenditure ($m) 1975-76 ... 103.5 1976-77 ... 108.9 1977-78 ... 117.9 1978-79 ... 114.1 1979-80 ... 119.2 1980-81 ... 129.7 1981-82 ... 145.2 1982-83 ... 178.5 1983-84 ... 189.7 1984-85 ... 206.1 1985-86 ... 231.2 1986-87 ... 246.4 1987-88 (ests)... 248.5 (a) Expenditure includes all actual DSTO expenditure (see b) plus expenditure by Service elements. These figures differ from the Defence R&D data in the Science and Technology statement presented to Parliament by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, which include expenditure by the Office of Defence Production and Defence Industry Division. (b) DSTO expenditure excludes the Australian Contribution to the Defence Support Centre-Woomera, the Woomera Hospital and approximately 70% of the Defence Information Services Branch (DISB). (2) Military research and development by DSTO can only readily be attributed to the following activity categories. The category breakdown reflects the allocation of DSTO personnel only but this is the predominant cost element. It cannot be directly related to the expenditure recorded in (1) above: Items % (i) Exploratory development ... 29.8 (ii) scientific and technical infrastructure ... 15.2 (iii) training and staff development ... 12.2 (iv) research ... 11.9 (v) advanced engineering development 10.0 (vi) incidental activities ... 4.7 (vii) scientific and technical consultation ... 4.7 (viii) trials and exercise analysis ... 3.7 (ix) policy advice & Central Office management ... 2.7 (x) analytical studies ... 1.4 (xi) international co-operation ... 1.0 NB: (a) based on actual personnel allocations in 1986-87. NB: (b) the above categories are now used in lieu of the previous dissection provided to Senator Tate. To provide the information in the previous format could not the done without considerable effort. (Question No. 17) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Have any Soviet warships entered the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone since the period covered by his answer to Question No. 4096 (Hansard, 19 August 1986); if so, will he state (a) the class of ship; (b) the name of each ship; (c) whether the ship's weapons are considered to be nuclear capable or not; (e) the time spent in the Zone by each ship; and (f) any ports visited by each ship. (2) Will he provide similar information with respect to ships of (a) the USA; (b) the UK; (c) France; (d) the People's Republic of China. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) & (2) To provide the details sought by the Honourable Senator would have the effect of assisting other countries to evaluate the ability of Australia and the countries with which it shares intelligence information, to monitor the activities of foreign warships. This would not be supportive of Australia's defence interests and nor do I consider that it would be appropriate for Australia to make available such comprehensive information about the deployments made by warships of our friends and allies in this or other regions. I can however, confirm that Soviet, British, US and French warships have operated in the area covered by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty since August 1986. Some of these vessels were nuclear powered and some are considered capable of being armed with nuclear weapons. These deployments were fully consistent with international law, including in particular the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. (Question No. 18) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Will the Minister bring up-to-date the information contained in the answers to Questions No. 1253 (Hansard, 10 October 1978) and No. 726 (Hansard, 21 August 1984), and provide information for each year or part thereof when updating the answers to parts (1), (3), (7), (10) and (12) of Question 1253. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As the honourable senator has noted this information was provided in 1978 and in 1984. In the time that has passed since 1984 the only substantial changes to any of the activities covered by the questions have been: (a) TRANET, Smithfield-the station came under sole Australian manning in 1984. (b) Joint Defence Space Research Facility (JDSRF), Pine Gap-the non-terminable period of the Agreement under which the facility operates expired on 19 October 1987. However, the Agreement provides for the continued operation of the facility in such a circumstance until one year's notice is given either by Australia or the United States to terminate. (c) Solar Observatory at Learmonth, Western Australia-for this facility also the initial non-terminable period has expired (on 27 October 1987). However, like the JDSRF, it will continue to operate until 12 months' notice is given by either side. (d) The Australian contingent of the Sinai Multi-national Force was withdrawn in March 1986. (e) The Government has announced that the permanent presence of Australian aircraft at Butterworth and Paya Lebar will be replaced in mid 1988 by rotational deployments. (2) The honourable senator has also asked for updated yearly information on staffing and operating costs at the joint defence facilities in Australia. The operating and staffing levels of these facilities have not changed substantially since 1984. The only increases in costs associated with operating the facilities have been those which would normally be expected as the result of inflation and periodic replacement and maintenance of equipment. Substantial resources would be involved in providing an answer to a greater degree of detail, and at first sight such a level of detail would not seem to add significantly to the substance of the information already provided. In the circumstances I am not prepared to authorise these resources. However, if the honourable senator would care to be more specific about the reasons for seeking these particular details I would be happy to give the matter further consideration. (Question No. 19) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Is the Minister aware of the US Project GOLDFINGER, run by USN Sea Systems Command; if so, when did he become aware of the project and what is the nature of the project. (2) Is the Defence Department or the ADF involved in any way with Project GOLDFINGER; if so (a) which elements of (i) the Department, and (ii) the ADF, are involved (b) when did the involvement commence; (c) what are the details of the involvement, and (d) what has been the annual cost to Australia of the involvement in constant dollars since the involvement commenced. (3) Will the Minister give an assurance that the Project and Australia's involvement in it are in no way whatsoever connected with, intended to facilitate or assist in the further development of the US Navy's `Maritime Strategy'. (4) Does the Minister repudiate all or part of the statement made in the Senate by his Representing Minister (Hansard, 11 February 1986, page 33) that the Maritime Strategy as outlined by US Admiral Watkins, Chief of US Naval Operations, is of questionable wisdom; if so, (a) what does he repudiate; and (b) why does he repudiate it; if not, will he give an assurance that no aspect of Australian-American defence co-operation is designed to in any way assist in or facilitate that strategy. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(4) The US Department of Defense has advised us that the US Navy's Sea Systems Command does not run a project named GOLDFINGER, and nor have the US NAVY or Australian defence authorities knowledge of such a project. In the circumstances I see no reason to add to the information that has already been provided about the Government's views on the US Maritime Strategy. (Question No. 20) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) How long has Australia been mapping areas of Indonesia under the Defence Co-operation Programme arrangements. (2) Which areas of Indonesia have been mapped during the period. (3) How much longer will the programme continue. (4) Which RAAF planes are being used for this programme. (5) How much has the programme cost to date. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australia has co-operated with Indonesia in survey and mapping under the DCP since the inception of that program in 1972. Survey and mapping operations in Indonesia were also undertaken by Army between 1970 and 1972. (2) The areas of Indonesia that have been mapped during the period are: West Kalimantan, Sumatra, the islands east and west of Sumatra, Irian Jaya and Maluku Province. (3) Survey mapping operations are undertaken by agreement at the time between the Australian and Indonesian Governments. Indonesia has requested assistance to complete the survey mapping of areas of Irian Jaya that were unable to be covered, due to adverse weather conditions, during the previous survey. A joint reconnaissance was undertaken in June 1987 and a decision regarding Australia's involvement will be taken shortly. (4) RAAF CC08 Caribou, C130 Hercules aircraft, Canberra Reconnaissance aircraft, and Iroquois helicopters, and a leased Lear jet have been used at various times in the past. A Caribou supported the reconnaissance of Irian Jaya. (5) As of 30 November 1987 the DCP survey and mapping project with Indonesia had cost $26.907m. This comprises $25.255m for survey mapping operations and $1.652m for the attachment of Australian survey officers in Indonesia and an Indonesian survey officer in Australia, and the production of maps. (Question No. 28) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) To what extent does Australia, in light of a report from the United States Government's House Armed Services Committee which concluded in August 1987, after a five months investigation, that serious problems were in place surrounding the MX strategic missile, depend on the efficiency of this particular weapon within its defence system. (2) What information has been made available to the Australian Government on the alleged deficiencies of the MX Missile. (3) What are the alleged defects, and how do they affect the defence security of Australia. (4) What on-going procedures are in place between the United States and Australia within our joint defence arrangements for equipment failures or suspected failures to be reported to the Australian authorities. (5) Within what period of time does the Australian Government receive the relevant information and how is this transmitted? Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The MX ICBM is one of the US strategic nuclear missile systems. It is thus one of a number of missile systems which contribute to the deterrence of war at the super-power level. It is not a weapon possessed by Australia. (2) & (3) The US provides Australia with a considerable amount of information on strategic nuclear matters, including arms control. Most of the information provided is classified. (4) & (5) Adequate arrangements are in place for Australia to be informed of problems that arise with US-sourced military equipments used by the ADF. Various channels exist, including the defence representatives in Washington and Canberra. The means used and the time taken depend on the circumstances. (Question No. 55) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 September 1987: (1) How many days did each individual-(a) Federal; and (b) Family Court judge from each state or Territory sit in the most recent full year for which figures are available. (2) How many cases were listed awaiting-(a) hearing; and (b) determination in each of the: (i) Federal, and (ii) Family Courts in each State and Territory for each of the last 5 years. (3) What has been the average duration of waiting before a case is (a) heard; and (b) determined in each of the: (i) Federal, and (ii) Family Courts in each State and Territory for each of the last 5 years. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia and the Principal Registrar of the Family Court of Australia have provided the information incorporated in the answer. (a) FEDERAL COURT (1) The number of sitting days for Federal Court Judges during 1986 is set out at Attachment A. The particulars provided in Attachment A do not take account of the time spent by a Judge preparing reasons for judgment, on legal research, travelling to attend interstate sittings of Court, attending meetings of various bodies on which a Judge serves, e.g. Australian Law Reform Commission, by virtue of holding an office of Judge. (2) The records of the Federal Court are not kept in a form which provides details of all cases which were listed awaiting (a) hearing and (b) determination in each State and Territory for the past 5 years. The Federal Court has provided details of all matters filed in the Court's General and Industrial Divisions for the period 1984 to 1986 inclusive (Attachment B). Also included are details of applications made to the Court in its exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction during 1986 (Attachment C). Most applications filed with the Court come on for hearings of one type or another. These hearings can range from a simple directions hearing before a single Judge to a hearing before a Full Court of as many as five judges. (3) It is not possible to provide an average duration of waiting before a case is heard or determined. A period of about ten days may elapse between the date a matter is filed in either the General or Industrial Divisions and the time it comes on for its first directions hearing. Thereafter the time taken before a case is determined depends on the nature of the case and the relief being sought by the party bringing the application. In bankruptcy which requires personal service of a petition up to three weeks might elapse between presentation of the petition and the first return of the petition before the Court. Several months might elapse between filing of a notice of appeal and hearing of the appeal as appeal sittings are programmed in various cities a year in advance. On the other hand, instances have occurred where an application for leave to appeal is heard by a Full Court on the day following delivery of the reasons for judgment of a single Judge. (b) FAMILY COURT (1) In 1986, Family Court judges sat for the number of days indicated in Attachment D. The particulars provided in Attachment D do not include time spent by Judges preparing reasons for judgment, legal research, travelling to interstate sittings of the Court or attending meetings of various bodies on which a Judge serves by virtue of holding office as a Judge. (2) (a) and (b) From July 1985 the Family Court implemented a case management system under which the progress of cases is monitored. A high proportion of cases filed in the Court are settled as a result of such facilities as conciliation services and information sessions. It is estimated that approximately only 5% of all matters now go to a fully defended hearing. The number of cases which are awaiting hearing therefore fluctuates from time to time. It is not therefore possible to provide meaningful figures in response to the question as asked. However, the number of applications filed during each year from 1982 to 1986 inclusive were as set out in Attachment E. Statistics of the numbers of such cases that had been settled during each year are not available. The number of appeals filed before the Full Court during each year from 1982 to 1986 inclusive were as set out in Attachment F. Statistics on the numbers of appeal cases finalised at the end of each year are not available. (3) (a) and (b) Attachment G sets out the time taken from time of filing until hearing, in respect of applications for dissolution. In respect of ancillary applications, all such applications are given a First Return Date and many matters (in 1986 approximately 58%) are settled on this date. Other matters are settled on a further return date and approximately 5% of all cases go to a full defended hearing. In relation to the period from time of filing until First Return Date, generally, up until 1 July 1985 all Registries had a waiting time of 21 days, provided an application for short notice had not been granted. On 1 July 1985 the Court introduced the case management system, under which the first release date was extended to 6-8 weeks. The increased time was to allow the respondent sufficient time to file his/her answering material. In relation to the period from the time of filing until a matter is heard on a fully defended basis, prior to 1986 a number of Registries measured waiting from the time a matter was placed in the defended list until it was fully heard. Matters were placed in the defended list either upon the certification by the parties that it was ready for hearing, or at the conclusion of a Registrar's conference. Following the adoption of the case management system, all Registries now measure waiting time from the time of filing until the time of a defended hearing. Where a Registry has been able to provide the waiting period from the time of filing until a fully defended hearing for the whole period 1982-1986, that information is included in Attachment H. Attachment I includes Registries which, prior to 1986, measured waiting from the time a matter was placed in a defended list. The information provided under the column for the year 1986 measures the time from date of filing to full hearing. It should be emphasised that it would be misleading to compare the years 1982-1985 with 1986 in this Attachment. In respect of appeals, the period from the time of filing until the time of hearing in N.S.W., Victoria, Queensland and A.C.T. has generally been between 4.5 to 5.5 months. In Tasmania, S.A., W.A. and N.T., because of the small number of appeals filed, it would be misleading to quote an average time. Depending on the time of filing, the waiting time in respect of appeals would be within the range 1-6 months, but would not exceed 6 months. Attachment A FEDERAL COURT Judges' Sitting Days 1986 Full court Single Judge Chambers Tribunal A.C.T. Sup.ct Other Sup. ct Commssns etc. Remarks JUDGE (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Bowen C. J. ... 28 65 5 Fox J. ... 34 51 10 18 10 weeks long leave taken during year Sweeney J. ... 14 84 3 4 weeks long leave taken during year Forster J. ... 3 86 43 6 2 weeks long leave 8 weeks sick leave taken during year Woodward J. ... 31 122 7 Muirhead J. ... 72 Retired 21.7.86 Evatt J. ... 24 123 22 6 weeks long leave taken during year Northrop J. ... 39 125 11 Keely J. ... 21 101 Toohey J. ... 22 90 36 10 Fisher J. ... 29 109 39 6 Gallop J. ... 13 2 1 16 13 Primary Commission-ACT Supreme Court Davies J. ... 16 26 1 62 7 Primary Appointment President Administrative Appeals Tribunal Lockhart J. ... 43 96 11 25 Sheppard J. ... 30 115 22 24 6 19 Kelly J. ... 6 12 Primary Commission A.C.T. Supreme Court Morling J. ... 10 70 12 6 4 72 Jenkinson J. ... 21 110 10 8 11 Neaves J. ... 46 95 4 6 Beaumont J. ... 32 139 27 7 8 Wilcox J. ... 38 144 28 5 Spender J. ... 20 138 1 4 Gray J. ... 9 90 1 Everett J. ... 19 26 6 Primary Appointment President Inter-State Commission Pincus J. ... 19 26 6 Burchett J. ... 23 167 23 Miles J. ... 9 1 1 Primary Commission Chief Justice A.C.T. Supreme Court Jackson J. ... 31 119 9 38 Ryan J. ... 4 31 7 Appointed 29.7.86 Gummow J. ... 12 2 5 Appointed 24.11.86 French J. ... 2 5 13 Appointed 25.11.86 Attachment B MATTERS COMMENCED IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA GENERAL DIVISION (excluding bankruptcy) INDUSTRIAL DIVISION District Registry 1984 1985 1986 1984 1985 1986 N.S.W. ... 461 396 622 39 22 30 appeals ... 90 82 105 8 1 2 Vic. ... 340 304 433 35 19 57 appeals ... 48 45 37 2 . . 10 Qld ... 154 132 200 12 14 8 appeals ... 20 22 53 2 1 . . S.A. ... 50 80 93 22 13 10 appeals ... 9 15 14 . . 3 . . W.A. ... 115 104 132 25 6 3 appeals ... 25 18 21 1 . . . . Tas. ... 12 6 14 2 7 4 appeals ... 3 2 7 1 . . 1 A.C.T. ... 347 *...96 87 14 2 16 appeals ... 66 71 61 1 1 . . N.T. ... 40 32 9 # 3 2 . . appeals ... 35 29 3 1 . . . . TOTALS ... 1 519 1 150 1 590 152 85 128 appeals ... 296 284 301 16 6 13 NOTE: The number of appeals is also included in the totals for each Registry. NOTE* This included 260 Trade Practices Act matters unlikely to be repeated. NOTE# Appeals from Northern Territory Supreme Court to the Federal Court abolished as from 1 March 1986. FEDERAL COURT-SUMMARY OF BANKRUPTCY WORKLOAD STATISTICS Attachment C Jan. 1986 Feb. 1986 Mar. 1986 Apr. 1986 May 1986 June 1986 July 1986 Aug. 1986 Sept. 1986 Oct. 1986 Nov. 1986 Dec. 1986 1986 Creditors petitions N.S.W. 74 91 109 103 119 127 97 110 109 119 106 100 1 264 Vic. 46 65 23 65 30 31 17 22 34 42 37 35 447 Qld 53 37 48 39 58 41 58 50 47 62 70 45 608 S.A. 13 25 20 22 28 25 26 30 15 29 17 31 281 W.A. 4 3 5 4 8 3 5 5 2 6 2 1 48 Total 190 221 205 233 243 227 203 217 207 258 232 212 2 648 Other applications N.S.W. 11 15 9 21 19 23 15 22 30 21 28 26 240 Vic. 0 40 15 9 19 14 11 11 12 32 11 10 184 Qld 5 20 17 7 22 30 13 24 24 22 14 29 227 S.A. 11 16 15 35 4 6 19 16 22 25 11 16 196 W.A. 8 11 14 16 14 12 13 7 7 14 6 21 143 Total 35 102 70 88 78 85 71 80 95 114 70 102 990 Total applications 225 323 275 321 321 312 274 297 302 372 302 314 3 638 Attachment D FAMILY COURT Judges' Sitting Days Judge Number of Sitting Days Justice Elizabeth Andreas Evatt, Chief Judge ... 37 (a) Justice John Edward Ellis ... 189 Justice Henry Charles Emery ... 189 Justice Rodney Charles Wood ... 172 Justice William Samuel Simpson ... 172 Justice John Francis Fogarty ... 194 Justice Kemeri Ann Murray ... 187 Justice Thomas Henry McGovern ... 197 Justice Margaret Lusink ... 150 (b) Justice Basil Michael Hogan ... 197Justice William Griffith Dovey ... 111 (c) Justice Graham Rodney Bell ... 175 Justice Travis Erwin Lindenmayer ... 185 Justice Bryce Ernest Ross-Jones ... 174 Justice Thomas Roderick Joske ... 216 Justice Josephine Mary Highfield Maxwell ... 185 Justice Steven Strauss ... 194 Justice John Townsend Gun ... 176 Justice Hubert Rofeno Frederico ... 183 Justice Geoffrey Innes Walsh ... 188 Justice Adrian Allfree Smithers ... 211 Justice Adrian George Hingston Cook ... 202 Justice Gordon John Ford Yuill ... 187 Justice Robert John Bulley ... 183 Justice David Charles Tonge ... 160 Justice William Brian Treyvaud ... 194 Justice George Ernest Lambert ... 178 Justice Edward Gamaliel Butler ... 137 Justice Peter Francis Underhill ... 185 Justice Eric Rainsford Baker ... 180 Justice Peter Edward Nygh ... 178 Justice Peter Bernard Hase ... 199 Justice John Patrick Elliott ... 98 (d) Justice Richard Walter Gee ... 198 Justice Doreen Bulbeck ... 186 Justice Neil John Buckley ... 174 Justice Margaret Ann Renaud ... 192 Justice James Patrick O'Hara Barry ... 169 Justice John Spencer Purdy ... 195 Justice Rodney Norman James Purvis ... 183 (e) Justice John Rudolph Wilzcek ... 178 Justice Warwick Rourke ... 193 (f) Justice Hugh Jamieson Burton ... 129 (g) Justice Joseph Victor Kay ... 119 (h) Justice Graeme Robert Mullane ... 88 (i) Justice Mary Jane Lawrie ... 82 (j) Notes: (a) The Chief Judge was on long leave from 15 January 1986 until April 1986. The administrative functions associated with the proper functioning of the Court necessarily limit the number of days the Chief Judge is available to sit on cases. (b) Justice Lusink was on long leave from 15 January 1986 until 21 March 1986. (c) Justice Dovey was on sick leave for a substantial part of the year. (d) Justice Elliott was on sick leave from 22 August 1986. (e) Justice Purvis, who is a Presidential Member of the A.A.T., sat 5 days in that Tribunal. (f) Justice Rourke was appointed on 30 January 1986 and began sitting on 30 January 1986. (g) Justice Burton was appointed on 5 June 1986 and began sitting on 11 June 1986. (h) Justice Kay was appointed on 12 June 1986 and began sitting on 18 June 1986. (i) Justice Mullane was appointed on 28 July 1986 and began sitting on 29 July 1986. (j) Justice Lawrie was appointed on 21 August 1986 and began sitting on 25 August 1986. Attachment E FAMILY COURT Number of applications filed during 1982-1986 (D=dissolution application, A=ancillary application) 1982 D A 1983 D A 1984 D A 1985 D A 1986 D A New South Wales ... 14,455 11,499 14,220 11,638 13,128 13,092 11,671 11,851 12,842 13,107 Victoria ... 10,842 7,733 10,401 6,460 9,395 7,625 8,448 6,936 9,452 8,902 Queensland ... 6,300 4,420 6,828 4,890 7,450 6,011 7,681 5,239 7,573 5,809 South Australia ... 4,471 2,327 4,335 3,908 3,482 3,420 3,974 3,693 3,959 3,515 Tasmania ... 1,368 2,008 1,277 1,476 1,194 1,614 1,222 1,403 1,207 1,322 A.C.T. ... 1,590 1,319 1,498 1,365 1,756 1,518 1,695 1,556 1,714 1,717 Total ... 39,026 29,306 38,559 29,737 36,405 33,280 34,691 30,678 36,747 34,372 Attachment F FAMILY COURT Number of appeals filed before the Full Court during 1982-1986 calendar years 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 New South Wales ... 138 132 115 112 121 Victoria ... 46 42 36 51 59 Queensland ... 51 46 42 54 38 South Australia ... 26 18 20 14 16 Tasmania ... 6 8 4 3 10 A.C.T. ... 7 7 20 11 8 Supreme Court of N.T. ... 3 1 0 1 2 Family Court of W.A. ... 17 11 24 31 24 Total ... 294 265 261 277 278 Attachment G FAMILY COURT Average period of waiting for hearing of a dissolution application (Measured in terms of weeks) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 New South Wales Sydney ... 8 7 8 7 6 Parramatta ... 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 Newcastle ... 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 Canberra ... 6 6 6 6 6 Victoria Melbourne ... 10 9 13 .5...6 8 Dandenong ... Commenced Operations 3.9.84 * 8 10 * Statistics not available Queensland Brisbane ... 19 10 10 10 10 Townsville ... Comm....10 January 1983 12 8 10 South Australia Adelaide ... 8 8 9 7 10 Tasmania Hobart ... 8 8 7 8 .5...9 Launceston ... 6 .5...8 8 8 6.5 Attachment H FAMILY COURT Average waiting period for hearing of a fully defended matter, 1982-1986 (For 1982-85, periods are measured from time the matter was placed in the defended list until the time of full hearing. For 1986 the period is measured from time of filing until full hearing. The periods shown are measured in months.) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Victoria Melbourne* ... 12.5 12.5 18 .5...8 8.5 Dandenong ... commenced operations 3.9.84 4 18 * Melbourne Registry operated during this period a short causes list. The period of waiting, measured in months, for this list was as follows: Melbourne ... 7 7 .5...7 7 8 Queensland Brisbane* ... 18 15 12 11 11 Townsville ... Comm....11 1983 11 12 16 * Brisbane Registry, during this period, operated a short causes list. The period of waiting in this list, measured in months is as follows: Brisbane ... N/A 3 2 2 8 South Australia Adelaide ... 14 14 13 11 14 Tasmania Hobart ... 14 15 18 8 6 Launceston ... 10 9 10 9 9 Attachment I FAMILY COURT Average waiting period for hearing of a fully defended matter, 1982-1986 (In respect of 1982-1985, period is measured from the time the matter is placed in the defended list until the time of full hearing. In respect of 1986, time is measured from the time of filing until full hearing. Time is measured in months.) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 New South Wales Sydney ... 12 12 13 10 36 Parramatta ... 6 14 18 16 30 Newcastle ... 3 2 .5...5 5 .5...27 Canberra ... 3 .5...3 .5...3 .5...3 14 Note: In respect of Parramatta Registry, the apparent reduction in waiting in 1985 compared with 1984 was occasioned by a number of changes in procedures in 1985 and must therefore be qualified for this reason. (Question No. 58) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Will the Minister for Defence define the evidence on which he based his assurance that the Joint Defence Facilities do not participate in the Strategic Defence Initiative programme. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (1) I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Mr Cross' question without notice on this matter (House of Representatives Hansard, pages 659-60). I am not prepared to comment further on this matter except to emphasise that the certainty of the Government's assurances results from Australian full knowledge of all functions and activities of the joint facilities. (Question No. 64) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Which post offices have opened in Western Australia (W.A.) since 20 August 1985 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in W.A. since 20 August 1985 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in W.A. have been renamed since 20 August 1985; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) The following post office agencies have opened in Western Australia during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Office agencies opened Date operations commenced Girrawheen ... 2 September 1985 Mandurah North ... 11 November 1985 Hearson ... 23 June 1986 (2) The following post offices and post office agencies have been closed permanently in Western Australia during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Offices and Post Office agencies closed Date of effect Gwelup ... 30 September 1985 Pearce RAAF ... 4 October 1985 Deanmill ... 30 June 1986 Scaddon ... 30 June 1986 Repatriation Hospital Hollywood ... 31 July 1986 Wilson ... 31 July 1986 Bullfinch ... 31 August 1986 Grass Valley ... 31 August 1986 Yerecoin ... 24 November 1986 Kewdale Peet Park ... 16 December 1986 Gascoyne Junction ... 19 December 1986 Nabawa ... 31 March 1987 Nyamup ... 31 March 1987 Babakin ... 6 April 1987 Fimiston ... 5 June 1987 (3) The following post office in Western Australia has been renamed during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Original name of Post Office Date renamed New name Perth Aberdeen Street 1 July 1987 Northbridge (Question No. 65) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Which post offices have opened in South Australia (S.A.) and the Northern Territory (N.T) since 20 August 1985 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in S.A. and the N.T. since 20 August 1985 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in S.A. and the N.T. have been renamed since 20 August 1985; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) The following post office agencies have opened in South Australia and the Northern Territory during the period 20 August 1985 to September 1987: Post Office agencies opened Date operations commenced Hallett Cove ... 6 January 1986 Olympic Dam ... 24 November 1986 Roxby Downs ... 16 March 1987 Marla ... 1 July 1987 (2) The following post offices and post office agencies have been closed permanently in South Australia and the Northern Territory during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Offices and Post Office agencies closed Date of effect Lower Light ... 2 September 1985 Kapinnie ... 31 January 1986 Port Clinton ... 21 February 1986 Binnum ... 27 March 1986 Adelaide Currie Street ... 11 April 1986 Buccleuch ... 30 April 1986 Morchard ... 30 April 1986 Mt Gambier South ... 30 April 1986 Trans Aust Rail ... 1 May 1986 Exeter ... 14 May 1986 Mt Drummond ... 30 May 1986 Mt Hope ... 30 May 1986 Stenhouse Bay ... 30 May 1986 Peebinga ... 2 June 1986 Eden Hills ... 30 June 1986 Parafield Airport ... 30 June 1986 Pooraka East ... 30 June 1986 Port Lincoln East ... 30 June 1986 Sandalwood ... 30 June 1986 Venus Bay ... 31 July 1986 Mannahill ... 12 August 1986 Tooligie ... 15 August 1986 Wilkawatt ... 1 October 1986 Adelaide Gouger Street ... 14 November 1986 Renmark North ... 24 November 1986 Rapid Bay ... 13 December 1986 Avenue Range ... 16 December 1986 Everard Park ... 31 December 1986 Woodville West ... 31 December 1986 Albert Park ... 31 January 1987 Yahl ... 20 February 1987 Taldra ... 27 February 1987 Kidman Park ... 7 March 1987 Poochera ... 16 March 1987 Broadview ... 23 March 1987 Alice Springs South ... 27 March 1987 Point Pearce ... 31 March 1987 South Kilkerran ... 31 March 1987 Morphett Vale Central ... 9 May 1987 (3) The following post office and post office agency in South Australia and the Northern Territory have been renamed during the period period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Original name of Post Office or Post Office agency Date renamed New name Elizabeth Downs... 30 June 1986 Craigmore Leigh Creek South ... 20 November 1986 Leigh Creek (Question No. 66) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Which post offices have opened in Tasmania since 20 August 1985 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Tasmania since 20 August 1985 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Tasmania have been renamed since 20 August 1985; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) None. (2) The following post office agencies have been closed permanently in Tasmania during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Office agencies closed Date of effect Lefroy ... 30 June 1986 Cornwall ... 31 July 1986 Colebrook ... 1 September 1986 Tunnack ... 1 September 1986 Stringer Creek ... 24 September 1986 Melton Mowbray ... 31 July 1987 Redpa ... 31 August 1987 (3) None. (Question No. 67) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Which post offices have opened in Victoria since 20 August 1985 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Victoria since 20 August 1985 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Victoria have been renamed since 20 August 1985; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) The following post offices and post office agencies have opened in Victoria during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Offices and Post Office Agencies Opened Date Operations Commenced Patterson Lakes ... 1 April 1986 Rippleside ... 19 May 1986 Birallee Park ... 2 June 1986 The Pines ... 28 October 1986 Knox City Centre ... 2 February 1987 (2) The following post office agencies have been closed permanently in Victoria during the period 2 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Office Agencies Closed Date of Effect Fawkner South ... 30 September 1985 Ararat South ... 29 November 1985 Wodonga South ... 16 December 1985 Gilbank ... 3 February 1986 Maidstone ... 14 April 1986 Geelong Road ... 27 June 1986 McKillop ... 27 June 1986 Mt Buffalo Chalet ... 30 June 1986 Dutton Way ... 1 July 1986 Archies Creek ... 8 August 1986 Syndal East ... 20 September 1986 Glenmaggie ... 1 October 1986 Moonambel ... 31 October 1986 Gardenvale West ... 1 January 1987 Rowville ... 19 February 1987 Portsea ... 27 February 1987 Wiseleigh ... 3 April 1987 Spring Gardens ... 1 May 1987 Wood Wood ... 1 July 1987 (3) The following post offices and post office agencies in Victoria have been renamed during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Original Name of Post Office or Post Office Agency Date Renamed New Name Altona Gate ... 10 February 1986 Beevers Melbourne Degraves Street ... 1 September 1986 Melbourne Flinders Land Highpoint West ... 1 April 1987 Highpoint City Macleod ... 1 April 1987 Simpson Barracks, Macleod (Question No. 68) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Which post offices have opened in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory since 20 August 1985 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory since 20 August 1985 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory have been renamed since 20 August 1985; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) The following post offices and post office agencies have opened in New South South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Offices and Post Office agencies opened Date operations commenced Kambah Village ... 30 June 1986 Niagara Park ... 1 July 1986 Menai ... 28 July 1986 Greenfield Park ... 11 May 1987 Chisholm ... 27 July 1987 Kaleen ... 12 August 1987 (2) The following post offices and post office agencies have been closed permanently in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Offices and Post Office agencies closed Date of effect Basin View ... 22 August 1985 Nowra Hill ... 30 August 1985 Ultimo ... 30 August 1985 Curban ... 4 September 1985 Wirrinya ... 27 September 1985 Kiah ... 1 October 1985 Melrose Park ... 14 October 1985 Glen Alice ... 15 October 1985 East Hills ... 26 October 1985 Kerrs Creek ... 30 October 1985 Abernethy ... 31 October 1985 Ashcroft ... 8 November 1985 Drake ... 1 December 1985 Eastern Creek ... 4 December 1985 Hampton ... 18 December 1985 Lowther ... 18 December 1985 Wollar ... 2 January 1986 Merrylands West ... 18 January 1986 Stanmore ... 6 February 1986 Doyalson ... 28 February 1986 Balmain East ... 28 February 1986 Blacktown South ... 26 March 1986 Randwick North ... 27 March 1986 Beacon Hill ... 4 April 1986 Gunningbland ... 4 April 1986 Kogarah South ... 24 April 1986 Bunnan ... 30 April 1986 Birmingham Gardens ... 30 May 1986 Kempsey South ... 30 May 1986 Waitara ... 30 May 1986 Booroorban ... 30 May 1986 Heckenberg ... 6 June 1986 Bankstown Aerodrome ... 6 June 1986 Belrose ... 20 June 1986 Kambah ... 27 June 1986 Birriwa ... 30 June 1986 Burgooney ... 30 June 1986 Elong Elong ... 30 June 1986 Lisarow ... 30 June 1986 Mangerton ... 30 June 1986 Narara ... 30 June 1986 Neilrex ... 30 June 1986 Neutral Bay ... 30 June 1986 Northwood ... 30 June 1986 Windeyer ... 30 June 1986 Woolwich ... 30 June 1986 Booral ... 30 June 1986 Coffs Harbour Beach ... 30 June 1986 Kangaloon East ... 30 June 1986 Garland ... 30 June 1986 Hamilton South ... 30 June 1986 Matcham ... 30 June 1986 Liverpool North ... 1 July 1986 Lansvale East ... 23 July 1986 Hornsby Heights ... 31 July 1986 Mayfield East ... 31 July 1986 Tyndale Central ... 31 July 1986 Sylvania ... 23 August 1986 Hargraves ... 29 August 1986 Chullora ... 1 September 1986 Adamstown Heights ... 30 September 1986 Downer ... 1 October 1986 Glen Davis ... 2 October 1986 Limbri ... 27 October 1986 Kempsey Heights ... 31 October 1986 Parkes Lower ... 31 October 1986 Kamarah ... 10 November 1986 Dangar Island ... 21 November 1986 Aberdare ... 28 November 1986 Lambton North ... 28 November 1986 Hyams Beach ... 1 December 1986 Mount Wilson ... 17 December 1986 Frenchs Road ... 31 December 1986 Montefiores ... 31 December 1986 Wiley Park ... 7 January 1987 Padstow North ... 10 January 1987 Kelso ... 16 January 1987 Coogee South ... 16 January 1987 Pullabooka ... 28 January 1987 Broken Hill Railwaytown ... 30 January 1987 Killarney Heights ... 30 January 1987 Liverpool Milpo ... 30 January 1987 Collie ... 18 February 1987 Dubbo South ... 27 February 1987 Grafton North ... 27 February 1987 Liverpool West ... 28 February 1987 Aranda ... 27 March 1987 Cook ... 27 March 1987 Macquarie ... 27 March 1987 Pearce ... 28 March 1987 Chester Hill North ... 31 March 1987 McCallums Hill ... 31 March 1987 Wagstaff Point ... 31 March 1987 Broken Hill-Wyman Street ... 31 March 1987 Milparinka ... 31 March 1987 Bellbrook ... 10 April 1987 Balmoral Beach ... 30 April 1987 Lewisham ... 30 April 1987 Laggan ... 14 May 1987 Bumbaldry ... 26 May 1987 Maroubra Bay ... 5 June 1987 Bega West ... 30 June 1987 Canbelego ... 30 June 1987 Falls Creek ... 30 June 1987 Villawood East ... 21 August 1987 Roselea ... 29 August 1987 Bimbi ... 31 August 1987 Picnic Point ... 23 September 1987 (3) None. (Question No. 69) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Which post offices have opened in Queensland since 20 August 1985 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Queensland since 20 August 1985 and on what date did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Queensland have been renamed since 20 August 1985; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) The following post offices and post office agencies have opened in Queensland during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Offices and Post Office agencies opened Date operations commenced Willows Gemfields ... 1 November 1985 Victoria Point West ... 11 March 1986 Mater Hospital ... 21 April 1986 Maroochydore South ... 2 July 1986 Ashmore City ... 1 September 1986 Eight Mile Plains ... 1 December 1986 Chermside Centre ... 18 December 1986 Strathpine Centre ... 18 December 1986 Rockhampton Shopping Fair ... 2 March 1987 Hamilton Island ... 24 April 1987 Great Barrier Reef Wonderland 24 June 1987 Cairns No. 2 ... 14 September 1987 (2) The following post office agencies have been closed permanently in Queensland during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Post Office Agencies closed Date of effect Hungerford ... 1 October 1985 Ilbilbie ... 29 November 1985 Woolooga ... 2 December 1985 Southbrook ... 31 January 1986 Cherbourg ... 14 March 1986 Macrossan ... 31 March 1986 Shailer Park ... 10 April 1986 Abercorn ... 11 June 1986 Booyal ... 11 June 1986 Guthalungra ... 27 June 1986 Rosella ... 1 July 1986 Quinalow ... 3 July 1986 Elliott Heads ... 27 November 1986 Bongeen ... 28 November 1986 Murphys Creek ... 31 January 1987 Gore ... 9 February 1987 Hidden Valley ... 12 February 1987 Moore ... 13 April 1987 Thulimbah ... 15 June 1987 Dululu ... 1 July 1987 Aratula ... 30 August 1987 (3) The following post office and post office agency in Queensland have been renamed during the period 20 August 1985 to 24 September 1987: Original name of Post Office or Post Office agency Date renamed New name Brisbane Base Hospital ... 1 April 1986 Royal Brisbane Hospital Eildon ... 1 April 1986 Windsor (Question No. 70) Senator Sheil asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: Under the Income Tax arrangements (a) how is a Parliamentary Allowance paid to a Member of Parliament living in his usual abode (with no other habitable home), to be treated; (b) could it possibly be claimed as a `Travel Allowance' or `Living Away From Home Allowance'. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is no allowance specifically called a Parliamentary Allowance or a Living-Away-From-Home Allowance payable to Members of the Parliament under the Remuneration Tribunal determinations. A Travelling Allowance is payable to members at a daily rate prescribed by the Remuneration Tribunal. This allowance is fixed on the basis of an appraisal of the costs that members can be expected to face by reason of having to carry out their duties. The longstanding taxation treatment has been not to require the Travelling Allowances to be shown on group certificate on the basis that there are offsetting expenditures. This continues to be the case in the context of the new substantiation rules, which expressly exclude from their scope travel allowances determined on the basis of a reasonable determination of the costs involved. (Question No. 92) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) What factors caused the decision to be taken to abolish the Council of the A.C.T. Schools Authority. (2) Will there be any savings as a result of the decision; if so, what savings and of what order. (3) Does the abolition of the A.C.T. Schools Authority and its replacement by a purely advisory body remove existing provision for direct parent and teacher participation in executive decision-making at the system level of the A.C.T. public education system. (4) With what persons and/or organisations were discussions held relating to the proposed restructuring of the A.C.T. public education systems; specifically, were the following persons and organisations consulted: (a) the members of the Council of the A.C.T. Schools Authority; (b) the A.C.T. Council of Parents and Citizens Associations Inc; (c) the A.C.T. Teachers' Federation; if not, why not. (5) Could the Minister please explain, in the light of his statement that present circumstances are different from those which prevailed when the A.C.T. Schools Authority was first established, what circumstances have changed and why these considerations are held to justify the abolition of parent and community participation in decision-making at the system level in the A.C.T. (6) Is the decision to abolish the Council of the A.C.T. Schools Authority connected in some way with preparations for self-government in the A.C.T.; if so, how. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The abolition of the Council of the A.C.T. Schools Authority was part of a package of changes in A.C.T. education, and the general administration of the A.C.T., to improve management and resource use. (2) Yes; immediate saving of sitting fees of approximately $70,000 a year. Significant staff savings will progressively occur as the Authority is reorganised to introduce more accountable management. (3) Teachers and parents will continue to participate directly in school board decision-making and will be represented on the advisory committee established by the Chief Education Officer. Teachers will be direct participants in executive decision-making at system level. (4) The decision was taken in the context of the 1987-88 Budget and was subject to the rules regarding budget decisions. The organisations referred to were not consulted. (5) (a) New circumstances include reports from the Grants Commission, the A.C.T. Budget, and the establishment of the A.C.T. Education Council which provides for community input in a coordinated manner across all sectors of A.C.T. education. (b) As indicated in (3) and (5) (a) above, parent and community participation will continue. (6) Yes. The Government is establishing an integrated A.C.T. Administration and moving towards a separate A.C.T. territorial and municipal budget in order to be better prepared for self government. (Question No. 101) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, upon notice, on 27 October 1987: What discretionary powers does the Minister for the Environment and the Arts or the department head have in refusing a Freedom of Information request. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Section 14 of the FOI Act makes it clear that the provisions of the Act are not intended to prevent or discourage Ministers or agencies from giving access to documents, including exempt documents, other than as required by the Act, where it is proper or required by law to do so. Section 14 preserves an existing discretion to release documents held by an agency or Minister. (2) Subsection 20 (3) provides that access in a particular form may be refused and given in another form where the giving of access would: (a) interfere unreasonably with the operation of an agency or the performance by the Minister of his or her functions; (b) be detrimental to the preservation of a document or would not be appropriate given the physical nature of the document, or (c) except for the FOI Act, involve an infringement of copyright (other than copyright owned by the Commonwealth, an agency or State) being matter that does not relate to the affairs of an agency or a Department of State. (3) Section 24 provides that an agency or Minister may refuse access to a request which encompasses all documents containing information of a specified kind that would unreasonably divert the resources of an agency from its other operations, or would interfere substantially and unreasonably with the performance by the Minister of his or her functions. (Question No. 108) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 November 1987: Does the Commissioner of Taxation give leasehold land a zero value when leases are renewed, extended, or converted to freehold in calculating capital gains tax; if so, (a) would such an interpretation adversely affect thousands of farmers, particularly in northern Australia; and (b) will the Commissioner of Taxation examine this anomaly and issue a taxation ruling at an early opportunity. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Under the capital gains tax legislation, the surrender, expiry or renewal of a lease, including a Crown lease, is treated as the disposal of an asset by the lessee and the issue of a new lease is treated as the acquisition of a new asset. Where a lessee of a pastoral lease has a right, or an understanding with the lessor, that on or before its expiry the lease will be renewed, and in the event that it is not renewed that compensation is payable to the lessee, the market value of the original pastoral lease determined at the time of surrender, expiry or renewal, will be included in the cost base of the new pastoral lease for capital gains tax purposes. Specific provisions deal with the situation where a lease of land is converted to freehold. If the lease was granted in perpetuity or for a term of not less than 99 years, the lessee is taken to have acquired the freehold at the time when the lessee acquired the lease. Therefore, if the lease was acquired before 20 September 1985, the freehold is also taken to have been acquired before that date. The consideration for the acquisition of the freehold is taken for tax purposes to be the sum of the premium paid for the grant or assignment of the lease and any amount paid to acquire the reversionary interest. For other leases of land (that is, those not granted in perpetuity or for a term of less than 99 years) the capital gains treatment depends on when the lease was acquired. If the lease was acquired before 20 September 1985, the freehold in the land is taken to have been acquired when the reversionary interest was acquired and for the market value of the land. If the lease was acquired on or after 20 September 1985, the cost of the freehold for capital gains purposes includes the premium paid for the grant or assignment of the lease and any amount paid to acquire the reversionary interest. The current treatment of Crown leases under the capital gains tax legislation is under consideration in the context of a review of the rollover provisions. The results of that will be announced as soon as practicable. (Question No. 113) Senator McLean asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 4 November 1987: (1) What is the average time domestic subscribers take to pay Telecom Australia bills. (2) What is the average time business subscribers take to pay Telecom Australia bills. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) & (2) Approximately 75 per cent of telephone bills are paid within Telecom's 14 day terms. Actual data on the respective average times Telecom's residential and business customers take to pay bills is not available. (Question No. 131) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 November 1987: (1) What is the annual cost to revenue of the $250 pensioner taxation rebate. (2) Is the rebate available to any taxpayers whose sole source of income is superannuation payments; if not, what are the reasons for not paying the rebate to such persons. (3) What would be the cost to revenue of extending the pensioner taxation rebate to persons receiving various small amounts of superannuation, for example, below $6,000, $7,000 and $10,000 per annum. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The estimated cost to revenue of the $250 pensioner taxation rebate for the 1985-86 income year, the latest year for which data is available, is $170m. (2) and (3) No. The purpose of the pensioner taxation rebate is to ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on Australian social security or repatriation pensions do not have to pay income tax on the pensions. A person receiving such a pension is entitled to the maximum $250 rebate where his or her taxable income does not exceed $5 914 in 1986-87 and $6 142 in 1987-88. The rebate is reduced by 12.5 cents for each dollar of taxable income above those levels and shades out completely where taxable income exceeds $7 913 in 1986-87 and $8 141 in 1987-88. While a person whose sole source of income is a superannuation payment does not qualify for the pensioner rebate, he or she may, subject to the pension assets and income tests, qualify for a part age pension. Receipt of an age pension would, in turn, entitle the person to the pensioner rebate if his or her total taxable income were within the relevant income limits. For example, a single person of pensionable age whose only other source of income in 1987-88 was a $6 000 superannuation payment would be entitled, subject to the pension assets test, to receive an age pension of approximately $4 080. However, there would be no benefit available under the pensioner rebate because the total taxable income of some $10 080 would exceed the upper shade out limit of $8 141 for the rebate. Persons with $7 000 or $10 000 superannuation payments would be in a similar situation. The cost to revenue of extending the pensioner rebate to persons receiving superannuation payments below $6 000, $7 000 or $10 000 per annum, who for whatever reason are not also receiving a part social security or repatriation pension so as to be eligible for the rebate, is considered to be small because of the limited number of additional cases where the rebate would be of benefit. (Question No. 133) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 November 1987: (1) Is it the case that the present threshold for the payment of Provisional Personal Income Tax is $1,000 per annum or more in income from other than personal exertion. (2) Are a number of social welfare pensioners and beneficiaries now required to pay provisional tax. (3) Is it the case that for 1987-88, social welfare pensioners and beneficiaries can earn $40 weekly or $2,080 per annum before losing any social welfare payments. (4) What would be the annual cost to revenue of raising the threshold for provisional tax payments to around $2,000 per annum for pensioners and beneficiaries. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Provisional tax is generally payable by anyone whose taxable income is high enough for income tax to be payable and whose level of non-salary and wage or pension income, such as interest on savings, exceeds $999. (2) On the basis of the present rate of social security pension, a single pensioner without dependants will be allowed to earn up to $14 153 in 1987-88 and still be entitled to a pension. In these circumstances, some pensioners are required to pay income tax and to pay provisional tax on their non-salary and wages income. (3) For 1987-88 a single social security pensioner without dependants can earn up to $2 080 and still receive the maximum pension. (4) The annual cost to revenue of raising the thresh hold for provisional tax liability to $2 000 per annum for social security pensioners and beneficiaries is estimated to be $20m. It should be noted, however, that increasing the present threshold would not reduce the amount of income tax payable by persons who would otherwise be subject to provisional tax but would simply defer the time for payment to the next financial year. Provisional tax is the non-salary and wages income counterpart to the pay-as-you-earn arrangements for deducting income tax instalments from salary and wages. (Question No. 140) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (1) Did a Dr Hempel and a Dr Etheredge visit the Attorney-General's office in Canberra in June 1986 and try to present evidence of their ownership of the vessel S.V. Orionia which some Israeli businessmen had accused them of stealing and for which the state of Israel had requested their extradition. (2) Did the Attorney-General say, with respect to the merits of their ownership of the vessel, that his Department was ``merely a Post Office''. (3) Is the Commonwealth Attorney-General able to intervene in the extradition process; if not, was the delivery of the S.V. Orionia, without due process, to persons who were not in fact its owners in error. (4) Have Dr Hempel and Dr Etheredge spent more than 16 months in a maximum security prison without ever having been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime in Australia and have they, in accordance with amendments to the Extradition (Foreign States) Act passed in 1985, been denied the right to present evidence of their lawful possession of the vessel they are purported to have stolen. (5) Have they been denied bail by a Federal Court Judge in March 1987 on his interpretation of the Extradition Act that bail should only be allowed to persons in their position under exceptional circumstances, at which time he stated that circumstances in this case were not exceptional enough. (6) Who is responsible for safeguarding the rights of Dr Hempel and Dr Etheredge in Australia. (7) What does the Government intend to do to address the inadequacies in current Australian extradition law exposed by the Orionia case and canvassed by Justice French's conclusion to his judgement of 20 October 1987. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1. On 27 June 1986 I met Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge in my Sydney office to discuss whether there was any evidence they wished to be put to the State of Israel which could lead to a reconsideration of the decision to request extradition. 2. Whilst I used the expression that my Department ``was merely a post office'', this statement did not relate to the merits of Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge's claim to ownership of the vessel, but to the actual documents placed before the Court in support of Israel's extradition request. Prior to those documents being forwarded to the court my Departmental officers and I had examined them for compliance with the requirements of both Australian extradition law and the Australia/Israel extradition treaty. 3. The role of the Attorney-General is set out in the relevant extradition legislation, in this case the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. The Attorney-General, once satisfied that the request for extradition is prima facie in order, refers it to the courts for determination of liability to surrender. If the courts find the fugitive liable to surrender the Attorney-General can either order or refuse surrender. The S.V. Orionia was handed to duly authorised representatives of the registered owners. 4. In accordance with s. 17 (6) (c) of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966, Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge were committed to custody on 1 August 1986 to await the issue of my warrant for their surrender. After they had exhausted the appellate process, and after I gave careful consideration to written submissions made on their behalf, my warrants issued on 19 June 1987. My decision to issue those warrants was challenged by them, and they are currently held in the Canning Vale Remand Centre in Western Australia pending hearing of their application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. Section 17 (6A) of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act provides that a fugitive is not entitled to adduce evidence to controvert an allegation that the person has committed the act in respect of which surrender is sought. This provision reflects the pre-existing common law position. Its express inclusion in the Act in 1985 did not change the existing law. An extradition hearing is not a trial of fact. Facts are determined by the courts of the requesting state, in this case Israel. 5. Yes. 6. The legislation vests this function in both the Attorney-General and the Australian courts. Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge have exercised their rights to make submissions to me and to appeal to, or seek review by, 6 different courts since August 1986 and have separately applied to the Federal Court of Australia for release on bail. 7. Mr Justice French stated that ``this case discloses deficiencies in the system of decision making and review that could affect public confidence in the law and in the administration of justice''. Prior to the delivering of His Honour's decision the Government had considered the problems created by multiple review procedures and on 28 October introduced into the Parliament the Extradition Bill 1987. That Bill, together with the Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 will have the effect of streamlining the review and appeal processes. (Question No. 145) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 December 1987: (1) Is a working draft of proposed constitutional changes, including a 4 year Parliamentary term, available for public comment. (2) What public comment has already been sought by the Constitutional Commission, and what further comment will be sought by the Federal Government, before the matters are put in a referendum. (3) When will the referendum on constitutional change take place. (4) Will it put each question relating to constitutional change separately, or will the changes be presented as a package, to be voted on ``in block''. (5) What standing do recommendations of the Constitutional Commission have. (6) Under what procedure does the Government decide whether to accept or reject the Commission's recommendations, and how does it determine which of the Commission's recommendations will be put in a referendum. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Constitutional Commission is to report by 30 June 1988, although I understand it might complete its final report before then. That report will, I understand, include suggested legislative drafts as well as detailed proposals. In early October 1987 the Commission indicated proposals it intended to make on Parliamentary terms, and some related Parliamentary issues, trial by jury, and legislative power over defamation. That announcement was widely publicised at the time. Detailed legislative drafts were not included in the Commission's announcement. However, descriptive details are available, I understand, from the Constitutional Commission. Both the Australian Judicial System Advisory Committee and the Individual and Democratic Rights Advisory Committee included in their reports to the Constitutional Commission drafts of the changes that they proposed be made to the Constitution. Those proposals and the recommendations of the other Advisory Committees are, however only recommendations to the Commission. They are not recommendations to the Government. (2) The Constitutional Commission has throughout its life sought public comment on the issues it is considering. I understand that it has received more than 3,800 submissions so far and many of these were in response to the work of the various Advisory Committees. The Commission's final report and recommendations will be tabled in Parliament as early as possible. The Government will then consider its attitude to the Commission's proposals, and will introduce legislation in the Parliament for any referendum pursuant to section 128 of the Constitution. (3) My preference is to conduct a referendum in the second half of 1988. (4) The Government has not made decisions on the form that any referendum questions will take. (5) Recommendations of the Constitutional Commission are only recommendations to the Federal Government. (6) Upon receipt of the Commission's final report the Government will consider the recommendations in the usual manner and determine which should be put to referendum. (Question No. 164) Senator Coates asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 December 1987: (1) Does the fortnightly Social Security pension pay day coincide with the fortnightly Australian Public Service pay day, and is this coincidence more significant now that direct credit of payments is widespread and now that financial institutions do not receive the transfer of funds until the due day. (2) Does the coincidence result in a crush in banks and other financial institutions on that pay day, especially at lunch time, causing delays and inconvenience to all customers and excessive pressure on staff. (3) Would the Minister consider moving the pension pay day to an earlier day of the week, or to the other week of the fortnight, with the appropriate transition arrangements. Senator Richardson —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The pay days do coincide. The new arrangements for the transfer of funds do not, however, come into force for Social Security pensioners until pay day 21 January 1988. (2) As mentioned in (1) the new arrangements do not come into force until pay day 21 January 1988. (3) The matter is currently under review. (Question No. 165) Senator Walters asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 16 December 1987: (1) In relation to the fishing industry, what is a `Revocable Permit'. (2) What are the guidelines used by the Department in relation to the issue of a Revocable Permit. (3) How many Revocable Permits have been issued since 1985. (4) To whom and for what reasons. (5) Have any variations of the original conditions attached to a Revocable Permit been made; if so, for what reason and to what Revocable Permits. (6) For what lengths of time are Revocable Permits usually issued. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is no such instrument as a `Revocable Permit' issued administratively or pursuant to the fisheries legislation for which the portfolio is responsible. (2) There are no guidelines. (3) Nil. (4) None were issued. (5) Not applicable. (6) There is no such instrument as a `Revocable Permit'. Senator Ryan —On 21 October 1987 (Hansard, page 1038), Senator Macklin asked me a question without notice concerning the responsibility for providing ongoing advice to the Government on national policy on languages. The Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: To oversee the implementation of the National Policy on Languages an advisory council, the Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education (ACLAME), is being established. The Council will be chaired by Mr Joseph Lo Bianco, author of the report, National Policy on Languages. The Council's advice will be channelled to the Government through the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs. Its members and terms of reference are as follows: Membership Part-Time Chairperson-Joseph Lo Bianco nominee of-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs nominee of-Australian Education Council nominee of-Asian Studies Council nominee of-Aboriginal groups nominee of-Business Council of Australia nominee of-ACTU (education sector) nominee of-Australian Council of Adult Literacy nominee of-Tourism groups nominee of-Ethnic groups (FECCA) selected-Applied linguist/Curriculum expert Observer status-Office of Multicultural Affairs Terms of Reference: To advise the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs on the implementation of the components of the National Policy on Languages; To monitor the effectiveness of the National Policy on Languages program components; To act as a forum for discussion on national needs and priorities relating to issues in languages policy. Senator Walsh —On 28 October 1987 (Hansard, page 1384), Senator Jones asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning matters reported in the Press relating to Mr Jack Herbert, a former Queensland police licensing officer. In addressing Senator Jones's question as to whether legal action had been taken by the Australian Taxation Office in respect of alleged unpaid taxes, I undertook to seek confirmation from the Treasurer as to the veracity of certain press articles mentioned in my reply. However, the Treasurer informed me that the secrecy provisions contained within the taxation law preclude the Commissioner of Taxation from commenting on any action taken by his office in respect of Mr Herbert. Accordingly, neither the Treasurer nor I am able to confirm the accuracy of the reports mentioned. Senator Button —On 5 November 1987 (Hansard, page 1779), Senator McGauran asked me the following question without notice: Will the Minister confirm that the Government has almost doubled the insurance premium rate for Export Finance and Insurance Corporation cover for Australian Wheat Board sales to Egypt and also reduced the percentage cover from 85 per cent to 80 per cent for the next three years? Why is the Government discouraging desperately needed agricultural exports to our third largest wheat market, when there is a satisfactory repayment arrangement in place between the Wheat Board and Egypt and when our major competitors, Canada and the United States of America, provide 100 per cent grain export cover? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: As previously indicated to you in the response to a question addressed to Senator Evans on this subject, the Government reviews the level and conditions of insurance cover for credit sales of wheat under the National Interest provisions of the Australian Trade Commission Act, prior to the Australian Wheat Board entering into sales contracts for each new season's crop. This year's review was undertaken against a background of a difficult international debt situation with an increasing incidence of the rescheduling of trade debts. Australia participated in a Paris Club meeting on 21-22 May 1987, where creditor countries of Egypt agreed to reschedule certain officially insured or guaranteed debts. As a follow-up to the Paris Club meeting, Australia is involved in bilateral negotiations with Egypt to reschedule around $400 million in debts (predominantly wheat debts) relating to contracts signed prior to 31 October 1986 with debt servicing obligations falling due between 1 January 1987 and 30 June 1988. Repayment will be over ten years, including a 5 year grace period. There is also the very real prospect that further debt reschedulings will be required by Egypt. The first round of negotiations with Egypt was held in Cairo on 17-19 November 1987 and we are confident that a satisfactory rescheduling agreement will be reached. The rescheduling of this debt means that the AWB is entitled to and will claim under its insurance policies for the amounts involved. In these circumstances, the Government's decision to continue to provide credit insurance cover to Egypt, albeit with some tightening of conditions, is a reflection of the importance of this market for Australian wheat, particularly at a time when we have a greatly reduced crop. It also reflects the value which we place on our broader relationship with Egypt. The conditions to apply to new credit insurance cover for the AWB's credit sales to Egypt involve a reduction in the percentage of cover provided. The cover now provided will be 80% of the payment risk over the three year credit term applying to the sale, compared to the previous arrangement of 85% cover in the first year increasing to 95% cover with satisfactory payments performance in subsequent years. A surcharge of 50% will also apply to AUSTRADE-EFIC's standard premium rate for credit sales to Egypt. This tightening of credit insurance terms is a normal and, I believe, responsible reaction by the Government to the substantial claim payments which will result from the current rescheduling of debts by Egypt and to the higher risk attached to these exports. I understand that the AWB has recently concluded a sale of 1.5 million tonnes of wheat to Egypt for shipment through 1988 on the basis of the revised credit insurance cover being provided by the Government through AUSTRADE-EFIC. Senator Walsh —On 18 November 1987 (Hansard, page 1958), Senator Brownhill asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that, for the 1987-88 financial year, single aged pensioners in receipt of income other than their pensions amounting to anything above $192 a year will be forced to lodge a taxation return? Is the Minister aware that this is in contrast with the position in 1984 when the effective tax-free threshold was $984 per annum? Does the Minister not agree that it is an impost on the pensioners and an uneconomic exercise for officers of the Australian Taxation Office to process returns for such small amounts? Would it not be a more sensible approach to raise the pensioner rebate for single pensioners from $250 to $450 so that aged single pensioners would need to be in receipt of more than $1,000 to be affected by taxation? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The cost to revenue of raising the level of the pensioner rebate to $450, in respect of the 1987-88 income year, is estimated to be in the order of $145 million. The Government is aware of the relevant matters raised by the honourable Senator and the level of the rebate will be kept under review. Senator Walsh —On 23 November 1987 (Hansard, page 2198), Senator Walters asked me the following question without notice: The introduction by the Australian Taxation Office of taxpayer self-assessment was intended to speed up the processing of tax returns. However, I have been informed that delays of up to 12 weeks are now being experienced by taxpayers expecting refunds, while assessment notices for under-payment of tax are being processed within six weeks. Can the Minister explain the reason for the difference of six weeks between the issue of assessment notices and refund cheques, because one could be forgiven if the immediate reaction where that the Government is employing delaying tactics in the issue of refunds to save interest payments and help the Budget debt? The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that the Australian Taxation Office has an overall objective of issuing assessments for all returns within nine weeks of lodgment. To the end of November 1987 this objective has been met in 95% of current year refund cases. The majority of assessment resulting in an underpayment of tax (``debt assessments'') involve provisional tax for 1988. These assessments could not be issued until Royal Assent was given to all of the Rates Acts. A small number of debt assessments were also held up because of errors on returns and for other reasons. The Commissioner emphasised that preference is not given to assessments involving an underpayment of tax. The systems and procedures used in the Taxation Office do not distinguish between refunds and underpayments until the return has been processed. Senator Tate —On 23 November 1987 (Hansard, page 219I), Senator Chapman asked me a question without notice concerning funding for the Port Pirie Education Centre (Inc.). The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. Recurrent funding under the Education Centres Program for nine of the 32 Education Centres, including the Port Pirie Education Centre, ceased in the 1986/87 Budget in the context of the need to reduce overall expenditure within the public sector. It should be understood that funding under this Program for the Port Pirie Centre ceased from the beginning of 1987, not 1988 as mentioned by the honourable senator. The Commonwealth Schools Commission in its Report Commonwealth Programs and Policy Development for Schools 1988, which was presented to the Government in May 1987, recommended that funding be provided by the Commonwealth to support up to 26 Education Centres in Australia in 1988 at a total cost of $2.3 million. This represented an increase of some $600,000 over the amount provided in 1987. The Commission did not, however, specify which 26 Centres should be supported. The Government's response to this report was announced in the 1987/88 Budget which, in relation to the Education Centres Program, maintained funding at the same level in real terms to the 23 Centres which were supported in 1987. The Port Pirie Education Centre has been assessed by the Department as a suitable provider of job search training courses and is contracted to deliver courses to 30 June 1988. The Centre was identified by the local Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) manager as having appropriately qualified staff, previous experience with Departmental programs and existing good relations with the CES. In addition, the Centre was considered to have the capacity to provide quality jobsearch training in outlying areas. There was no indication during this assessment process of the possibility of the closure of the Centre. A grant of $45,841 was approved under the Community Employment Program (CEP) in June 1987 for a project sponsored by the Centre to employ 5 unemployed people for 17 weeks. The primary objective of the CEP is to create short-term jobs to provide employment and work experience for disadvantaged unemployed people, particularly the long-term unemployed, with the aim of improving their long-term employment prospects. The project to upgrade the Centre's grounds met the CEP guidelines and objectives. Furthermore, in support of its application, the Centre advised that the premises are utilised by at least 43 local community organisations and this high level of utilisation was one of the main reasons for the project's approval. Rather than funds being wasted, the CEP project assisted five unemployed people and benefited the community through improvements to a well utilised local facility. While Commonwealth funding under the Education Centres Program has been an important source of funding for Education Centres, they have also sought and received significant support from other sources. For example, a major source of funding for the Port Pirie Centre in 1987 was a grant under the Projects of National Significance Program, administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, to support a policy development project concerned with rural schooling, with particular focus on the needs of girls. It is open to all Education Centres to seek additional funding from a variety of sources. The CEP grant and job search program funding are consistent with the wider community role of the Centre and will assist it to support and enhance its operations. Senator Ryan —On 25 November 1987 (Hansard, page 2387), Senator Tambling asked me, as Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health, the following question without notice: I refer the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health to the answer which the Minister for Community Services and Health gave to a question in the House of Representatives in which Dr Blewett condemned the Northern Territory Government over the establishment of a private hospital within a public hospital campus in Darwin. This was an interim measure pending the completion of a new building for a private hospital. Given the Health Minister's warning that this decision has major policy implications, does this warning also apply to all State governments and, in particular, the New South Wales Government regarding its proposals to introduce similar private hospitals within the St George hospital, the Lismore hospital and, possibly, the Campbelltown hospital? Does the Government intend also to close the private division already operating in the Calvary public hospital located in Canberra, which would be well known to Senator Ryan. Senator Tambling also asked the following supplementary question: Given the nature of the Minister's answer, very emphatically, to the latter part of my question relating to the Calvary public hospital in Canberra in which she indicated that there would be no intention to close the private division, will she please draw a comparison between that situation and the situation at Royal Darwin Hospital? The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The issue of private hospitals being set up within the precincts of public hospitals is essentially a matter for State and Territory health authorities to decide. The Government, however, is concerned to ensure that under Medicare, unrestricted access to free public hospital treatment is maintained and that the entitlement to opt for doctor of choice involving basic table insurance cover or an equivalent out-of-pocket expense for public hospital accommodation and services, is not curtailed in any way by such arrangements. In the case of the Northern Territory agreement with the Darwin Private Hospital to lease part of the Royal Darwin (public) Hospital for private patients, there were reasons to believe that these rights were being contravened. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Government to satisfy itself that the principles of Medicare, as embodied in the Commonwealth/Northern Territory Agreement in relation to the provision of hospital services, would not be violated. The Government consequently sought and received the necessary assurances regarding free and unfettered access to Royal Darwin Hospital before declaring the Darwin Private Hospital for health fund benefits purposes. The Government will be maintaining the same adherence to the principles of Medicare regarding access to public hospital services, in looking at any future proposals by all States and Territories for the establishment of private hospitals within the precincts of public hospitals. In declaring the Calvary Private Hospital in the ACT for fund benefits purposes, there were no similar reasons to believe that patients' rights might have been under any threat as was the case in Darwin. Senator Button —On 10 December 1987 (Hansard, page 2884), Senator Hamer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: Is the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial relations aware of the closure tomorrow of a shipping terminal in Rozelle, Sydney, as a result of inefficient work practices, mainly by members of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia? Does the Minister agree that the productivity rate of between four and five containers a day is not only appalling in comparison with 10 to 12 in Melbourne, but even more appalling in comparison with terminals in other countries which have a productivity rate at least double that of the best terminal in Australia? Does the Minister consider that members of the Waterside Workers' Federation from the Rozelle terminal, who are to be returned to the waterside labour pool, are entitled to any part of the productivity-related wage rise which is being negotiated at present for the members of this union, considering that their productivity rate has caused the closure of the terminal and the loss of jobs for other workers? In my reply, I undertook to find out about this matter and to ascertain the views of the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The Consolidated Cargo Services (CCS) container depot at Rozelle, ceased operations on 11 December 1987. The depot closed because it had been losing money and its employees would not agree to the introduction of a productivity scheme as required by the depot's management. The Government is concerned that the performance of all sectors of the Australian waterfront are improved to enhance our international competitiveness. The Government's Waterfront Strategy comprises an investigation of shore based shipping costs by the Inter-State Commission and its oversight of four industry panels which are reviewing particular areas of concern. This strategy is designed to address the Government's concerns that improvements be made across the whole of this area. The number of containers packed or unpacked per day in container depots is one facet of this much larger problem. The Waterside Workers' Federation has agreed to a productivity scheme in two Melbourne depots which it is understood has improved performance to the levels indicated by Senator Hamer. No figures are held on the packing/unpacking rates in overseas container depots to enable an international comparison. It should be noted that the packing/unpacking of containers is not comparable with the loading/unloading of containers onto/from ships. Members of the Waterside Workers' Federation had a package of second tier offsets and a 4% salary increase ratified by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 28 October 1987. This included offsets in the container depots which have been implemented. As the former employees of the CCS depot were a party to that agreement they would have been legally entitled to that increase. Senator Tate —On 17 December 1987 (Hansard, page 3307) Senator Bishop asked me as the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question without notice concerning the appointment of Mr Allan Asher to the Trade Practices Commission. At the conclusion of my answer Senator Bishop asked a supplementary question requesting that I inquire of the Attorney-General whether Mr Asher's statements and beliefs make him a suitable person for appointment to the Trade Practices Commission. The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government's decision to recommend that the Governor-General appoint Mr Asher as a full-time member of the Trade Practices Commission was made after a competitive selection process. Expressions of interest for appointment as a member of the Trade Practices Commission were sought through national advertising. Subsequently interviews were conducted by a selection committee comprising Mr David Block A.O., consultant and businessman, the Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission, Mr Bob McComas, a Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Mr Richard St. John, and one of my senior advisers, Mr Greg Crough. The Trade Practices Commission has a wide range of competition and consumer functions. Commission members are not appointed because they represent a particular interest group but because they are the best applicants available to carry out those functions. The Government has full confidence in Mr Asher's ability to carry out effectively his responsibilities as a member of the Commission. Senator Button —On 18 December 1987 (Hansard, page 3474), Senator Michael Baume asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: Has the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations noted reports that the pace-setting severance pay agreement, now ratified by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for approximately 1,000 building workers on the new Parliament House will add a further $1m to the cost of the project? Did the Government make any submission to the Arbitration Commission on this matter before the determination was handed down? If so, was it in support of or in opposition to the proposal, particularly in view of the fact that previous opposition had led to a 12 week strike over this issue, costing multi-millions of dollars? Does the determination ``conform to the Government's social security, taxation and wage-fixing principles'' which were stated by the Minister here on 7 October as a requirement for favourable consideration as a severance pay scheme and which at that time he said required substantial amendment if it was to either meet its intended objectives or satisfy Government wages policy or conciliation and arbitration principles? I ask the Minister: What substantial changes have taken place since 7 October to make this scheme acceptable, if it is now acceptable, and what will the costs and other consequences be of this decision being spread through the building industry? In my reply I undertook to obtain an answer from the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The Government is aware that Commissioner Baird on 15 December 1987 ratified a consent agreement providing redundancy pay for certain employees on the Parliament House project. This decision is site specific and is an extension of a matter previously before the Commission. Major union and employers put submissions before the Commission. Whilst Commissioner Baird has not yet published his reasons he has indicated that the agreement is consistent with the Commission's termination change and redundancy (TCR) guidelines. Having been decided we must assume the decision is consistent with the Commission's wage fixing principles. The Government did not intervene in this matter. As the Commission has determined that the agreement complies with the TCR principles, the Government accepts that the agreement is a genuine redundancy scheme and previous concerns expressed to the parties would not apply to this scheme. Accordingly, I would not expect there to be any problems in regard to the requirements of social security or taxation legislation.