Wednesday, 24 February 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 540 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to Telecom's plans to introduce time charges for local calls; (2) that while Telecom remains a public enterprise, it must be accountable to the public, its owners; and (3) while Telecom retains a statutory monopoly which shields it from the discipline of competition, it should not be unilaterally allowed to impose extortionate charges upon the public. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon all members of the Senate in Parliament assembled to take action to prevent Telecom introducing time charges for local calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 122 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the sale of violent videos, books, and toys. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys in order to help stop the increasing amount of violent crimes committed in this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Patterson (from 23 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Resolutions be adopted: 1. Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses That, in their dealings with witnesses, all committees of the Senate shall observe the following procedures: (1) A witness shall be invited to attend a committee meeting to give evidence. A witness shall be summoned to appear only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant the issue of a summons. (2) Where a committee desires that a witness produce documents relevant to the committee's inquiry, the witness shall be invited to do so, and an order that documents be produced shall be made only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant such an order. (3) A witness shall be given reasonable notice of a meeting at which the witness is to appear, and shall be supplied with a copy of the committee's order of reference, a statement of the matters expected to be dealt with during the witness's appearance, and a copy of these procedures. Where appropriate a witness shall be supplied with a transcript of relevant evidence already taken. (4) A witness shall be given opportunity to make a submission in writing before appearing to give oral evidence. (5) Where appropriate, reasonable opportunity shall be given for a witness to raise any matters of concern to the witness relating to the witness's submission or the evidence the witness is to give before the witness appears at a meeting. (6) A witness shall be given reasonable access to any documents that the witness has produced to a committee. (7) A witness shall be offered, before giving evidence, the opportunity to make application, before or during the hearing of the witness's evidence, for any or all of the witness's evidence to be heard in private session, and shall be invited to give reasons for any such application. If the application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. (8) Before giving any evidence in private session a witness shall be informed whether it is the intention of the committee to publish or present to the Senate all or part of that evidence, that it is within the power of the committee to do so, and that the Senate has the authority to order the production and publication of undisclosed evidence. (9) A chairman of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee's inquiry and that the information sought by those questions is necessary for the purpose of that inquiry. Where a member of a committee requests discussion of a ruling of the chairman on this matter, the committee shall deliberate in private session and determine whether any question which is the subject of the ruling is to be permitted. (10) Where a witness objects to answering any question put to the witness on any ground, including the ground that the question is not relevant or that the answer may incriminate the witness, the witness shall be invited to state the ground upon which objection to answering the question is taken. Unless the committee determines immediately that the question should not be pressed, the committee shall then consider in private session whether it will insist upon an answer to the question, having regard to the relevance of the question to the committee's inquiry and the importance to the inquiry of the information sought by the question. If the committee determines that it requires an answer to the question, the witness shall be informed of that determination and the reasons for the determination, and shall be required to answer the question only in private session unless the committee determines that it is essential to the committee's inquiry that the question be answered in public session. Where a witness declines to answer a question to which a committee has required an answer, the committee shall report the facts to the Senate. (11) Where a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect adversely on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in private session. (12) Where a witness gives evidence reflecting adversely on a person and the committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to the committee's inquiry, the committee shall give consideration to expunging that evidence from the transcript of evidence, and to forbidding the publication of that evidence. (13) Where evidence is given which reflects adversely on a person and action of the kind referred to in paragraph (12) is not taken in respect of the evidence, the committee shall provide reasonable opportunity for that person to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission and appearance before the committee. (14) A witness may make application to be accompanied by counsel and to consult counsel in the course of a meeting at which the witness appears. In considering such an application, a committee shall have regard to the need for the witness to be accompanied by counsel to ensure the proper protection of the witness. If an application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. (15) A witness accompanied by counsel shall be given reasonable opportunity to consult counsel during a meeting at which the witness appears, and may make application for the reimbursement of legal costs. A committee shall give consideration to reasonable reimbursement of such costs. (16) Where a person incurs expenses in direct consequence of making a submission to a committee or appearing before a committee, the person may make application for reimbursement of the expenses. A committee shall give consideration to reasonable reimbursement of the expenses. (17) An officer of a department of the Commonwealth or of a State shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a Minister. (18) Reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to witnesses to make corrections of errors of transcription in the transcript of their evidence and to put before a committee additional material supplementary to their evidence. (19) Where a committee has any reason to believe that any person has been improperly influenced in respect of evidence which may be given before the committee, or has been subjected to or threatened with any penalty or injury in respect of any evidence given, the committee shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain the facts of the matter. Where the committee considers that the facts disclose that a person may have been improperly influenced or subjected to or threatened with penalty or injury in respect of evidence which may be or has been given before the committee, the committee shall report the facts and its conclusions to the Senate. 2. Procedures for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee That, in considering any matter referred to it which may involve, or gives rise to any allegation of, a contempt, the Committee of Privileges shall observe the procedures set out in this resolution, in addition to the procedures required by the Senate for the protection of witnesses before committees. Where this resolution is inconsistent with the procedures required by the Senate for the protection of witnesses, this resolution shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. (1) A person shall, as soon as practicable, be informed, in writing, of the nature of any allegations, known to the Committee and relevant to the Committee's inquiry, against the person, and of the particulars of any evidence which has been given in respect of the person. (2) The Committee shall extend to that person all reasonable opportunity to respond to such allegations and evidence by: (a) making written submission to the Committee; (b) giving evidence before the Committee; (c) having other evidence placed before the Committee; and (d) having witnesses examined before the Committee. (3) Where oral evidence is given containing any allegation against, or reflecting adversely on, a person, the Committee shall ensure as far as possible that that person is present during the hearing of that evidence, and shall afford all reasonable opportunity for that person, by counsel or personally, to cross-examine witnesses in relation to that evidence. (4) A person appearing before the Committee may be accompanied by counsel, and shall be given all reasonable opportunity to consult counsel during that appearance. (5) A witness shall not be required to answer in public session any question where the Committee has reason to believe that the answer may incriminate the witness. (6) Witnesses shall be heard by the Committee on oath or affirmation. (7) Hearing of evidence by the Committee shall be conducted in public session, except where: (a) the Committee accedes to a request by a witness that the evidence of that witness be heard in private session; (b) the Committee determines that the interests of a witness would best be protected by hearing evidence in private session; or (c) the Committee considers that circumstances are otherwise such as to warrant the hearing of evidence in private session. (8) The Committee may appoint, on terms and conditions approved by the President, counsel to assist it. (9) The Committee may authorise, subject to rules determined by the Committee, the examination by counsel of witnesses before the Committee. (10) As soon as practicable after the Committee has determined findings to be included in the Committee's report to the Senate, and prior to the presentation of the report, a person affected by those findings shall be acquainted with the findings and afforded all reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Committee, in writing and orally, on those findings. The Committee shall take such submissions into account before making its report to the Senate. (11) The Committee may recommend to the President the reimbursement of costs of representation of witnesses before the Committee, and the President is authorised to make reasonable reimbursement of such costs. (12) Before appearing before the Committee a witness shall be given a copy of this resolution. 3. Criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt The Senate declares that it will take into account the following criteria when determining whether matters possibly involving contempt should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and whether a contempt has been committed, and requires the Committee of Privileges to take these criteria into account when inquiring into any matter referred to it: (a) the principle that the Senate's power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for Senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt; and (c) whether a person who committed any act which may be held to be a contempt: (i) knowingly committed that act, or (ii) had any reasonable excuse for the commission of that act. 4. Criteria to be taken into account by the President in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should be given precedence of other business Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should have precedence of other business, the President shall have regard only to the following criteria: (a) the principle that the Senate's power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for Senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt. 5. Protection of persons referred to in the Senate (1) Where a person who has been referred to by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Senate, makes a submission in writing to the President: (a) claiming that the person has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person; and (b) requesting that the person be able to incorporate an appropriate response in the parliamentary record, if the President is satisfied: (c) that the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous or vexatious as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Committee of Privileges; and (d) that it is practicable for the Committee of Privileges to consider the submission under this resolution, the President shall refer the submission to that Committee. (2) Where a submission is referred to the Committee of Privileges under paragraph (1), the Committee may decide not to consider the submission if the Committee considers that the subject of the submission is not sufficiently serious or the submission is frivolous or vexatious. (3) If the Committee pursuant to paragraph (2) decides not to consider a submission referred to it, the Committee shall report that decision to the Senate. (4) If the Committee decides to consider a submission referred to it under this resolution, the Committee shall: (a) invite the person who made the submission to give written or oral evidence to the committee in relation to the submission; (b) make the submission available to a Senator who referred in the Senate to that person and invite that Senator to give written or oral evidence to the Committee in relation to the submission; and (c) invite any other person, including any other Senator, to give written or oral evidence to the Committee in relation to the submission, if the Committee is satisfied that that person may give evidence relevant to the submission. (5) In considering a submission and receiving evidence under this resolution, the Committee shall meet in private session. (6) The Committee shall not publish a submission referred to it under this resolution, its proceedings or any evidence received by it in relation to such a submission, but may present minutes of its proceedings and all or part of such submission or evidence to the Senate. (7) In its report to the Senate on a submission referred to it under this resolution, the Committee shall report whether persons invited to give evidence in relation to the submission have accepted such invitation, and may make either of the following recommendations: (a) that no further action be taken by the Senate or by the Committee in relation to the submission; or (b) that a response by the person who made the submission, in terms specified in the report and agreed to by the person and the Committee, be published by the Senate or incorporated in Hansard. (8) In considering a submission and reporting to the Senate the Committee shall not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the Senate, of the submission or of any evidence received by the Committee. (9) In its report to the Senate on a submission referred to it under this resolution, the Committee shall not make any recommendations other than those specified in paragraph (7). (10) The Committee shall not present to the Senate its minutes of proceedings or all or part of any submission or any evidence received by it if the disclosure of that material would have the effect of: (a) unreasonably adversely affecting or injuring a person, or unreasonably invading a person's privacy, in the manner referred to in paragraph (1); or (b) unreasonably adding to or aggravating any such adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy suffered by a person. 6. Matters constituting contempts That, without derogating from its power to determine that particular acts constitute contempts, the Senate declares, as a matter of general guidance, that breaches of the following prohibitions, and attempts or conspiracies to do the prohibited acts, may be treated by the Senate as contempts. Interference with the Senate (1) A person shall not improperly interfere with the free exercise by the Senate or a committee of its authority, or with the free performance by a Senator of the Senator's duties as a Senator. Improper influence of Senators (2) A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind, or by other improper means, influence a Senator in the Senator's conduct as a Senator or induce a Senator to be absent from the Senate or a committee. Senators seeking benefits, etc. (3) A Senator shall not ask for, receive or obtain, any property or benefit for the Senator, or another person, on any understanding that the Senator will be influenced in the discharge of the Senator's duties, or enter into any contract, understanding or arrangement having the effect, or which may have the effect, of controlling or limiting the Senator's independence or freedom of action as a Senator, or pursuant to which the Senator is in any way to act as the representative of any outside body in the discharge of the Senator's duties. Molestation of Senators. (4) A person shall not inflict any punishment, penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, a Senator on account of the Senator's conduct as a Senator. Disturbance of the Senate (5) A person shall not wilfully disturb the Senate or a committee while it is meeting, or wilfully engage in any disorderly conduct in the precincts of the Senate or a committee tending to disturb its proceedings. Service of writs etc. (6) A person shall not serve or execute any criminal or civil process in the precincts of the Senate on a day on which the Senate meets except with the consent of the Senate or of a person authorised by the Senate to give such consent. False reports or proceedings (7) A person shall not wilfully publish any false or misleading reports of the proceedings of the Senate or of a committee. Disobedience of orders. (8) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, disobey a lawful order of the Senate or of a committee. Obstruction of orders (9) A person shall not interfere with or obstruct another person who is carrying out a lawful order of the Senate or of a committee. Interference with witnesses (10) A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind, or by other improper means, influence another person in respect of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee, or induce another person to refrain from giving such evidence. Molestation of witnesses (11) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, another person on account of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee. Offences by witnesses etc. (12) A witness before the Senate or a committee shall not: (a) without reasonable excuse, refuse to make an oath or affirmation or give some similar undertaking to tell the truth when required to do so; (b) without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness when required to do so; or (c) give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular. (13) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse: (a) refuse or fail to attend before the Senate or a committee when ordered to do so; or (b) refuse or fail to produce documents, or to allow the inspection of documents, in accordance with an order of the Senate or of a committee. (14) A person shall not wilfully avoid service of an order of the Senate or of a committee. (15) A person shall not destroy, damage, forge or falsify any document required to be produced by the Senate or by a committee. Unauthorised disclosure of evidence etc. (16) A person shall not, without the authority of the Senate or a committee, publish or disclose: (a) a document that has been prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted, to the Senate or a committee and has been directed by the Senate or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in private session or as a document confidential to the Senate or the committee; (b) any oral evidence taken by the Senate or a committee in private session, or a report of any such oral evidence; or (c) any proceedings in private session of the Senate or a committee or any report of such proceedings, unless the Senate or a committee has published, or authorised the publication of, that document, that oral evidence or a report of those proceedings. 7. Raising of matters of privilege That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, a matter of privilege shall not be brought before the Senate except in accordance with the following procedures. (1) A Senator intending to raise a matter of privilege shall notify the President, in writing, of the matter. (2) The President shall consider the matter and determine, as soon as practicable, whether a motion relating to the matter should have precedence of other business, having regard to the criteria set out in any relevant resolution of the Senate. The President's decision shall be communicated to the Senator, and, if the President thinks it appropriate, or determines that a motion relating to the matter should have precedence, to the Senate. (3) A Senator shall not take any action in relation to, or refer to, in the Senate, a matter which is under consideration by the President in accordance with this resolution. (4) Where the President determines that a motion relating to a matter should be given precedence of other business, the Senator may, at any time when there is no other business before the Senate, give notice of a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. Such notice shall take precedence of all other business on the day for which the notice is given. (5) A determination by the President that a motion relating to a matter should not have precedence of other business does not prevent a Senator in accordance with other procedures taking action in relation to, or referring to, that matter in the Senate, subject to the rules of the Senate. (6) Where notice of a motion is given under paragraph (4) and the Senate is not expected to meet within the period of one week occurring immediately after the day on which the notice is given, the motion may be moved on that day. 8. Motions relating to contempts That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, a motion to: (a) determine that a person has committed a contempt; or (b) impose a penalty upon a person for a contempt, shall not be moved unless notice of the motion has been given not less than 7 days before the day for moving the motion. 9. Exercise of Freedom of Speech (1) That the Senate considers that, in speaking in the Senate or in a committee, Senators should take the following matters into account: (a) the need to exercise their valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner; (b) the damage that may be done by allegations made in Parliament to those who are the subject of such allegations and to the standing of Parliament; (c) the limited opportunities for persons other than members of Parliament to respond to allegations made in Parliament; (d) the need for Senators, while fearlessly performing their duties, to have regard to the rights of others; and (e) the desirability of ensuring that statements reflecting adversely on persons are soundly based. (2) That the President, whenever the President considers that it is desirable to do so, may draw the attention of the Senate to the spirit and the letter of this resolution. 10. Reference to Senate proceedings in court proceedings (1) That, without derogating from the law relating to the use which may be made of proceedings in Parliament under section 49 of the Constitution, and subject to any law and any order of the Senate relating to the disclosure of proceedings of the Senate or a committee, the Senate declares that leave of the Senate is not required for the admission into evidence, or reference to, records or reports of proceedings in the Senate or in a committee of the Senate, or the admission of evidence relating to such proceedings, in proceedings before any court or tribunal. (2) That the practice whereby leave of the Senate is sought in relation to matters referred to in paragraph (1) be discontinued. (3) That the Senate should be notified of any admission of evidence or reference to proceedings of the kind referred to in paragraph (1), and the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States be requested to develop procedures whereby such notification may be given. 11. Consultation between Privileges Committees That, in considering any matter referred to it, the Committee of Privileges may confer with the Committee of Privileges of the House of Representatives. I table the explanatory notes which have also been circulated relating to the notice just given and seek leave to incorporate those explanatory notes in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE EXPLANATORY NOTES These notes list the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege on which the proposed resolutions are based, and indicate the nature of and the reasons for any proposed modifications of the terms of the Committee's recommendations. Some of the Committee's recommendations were for amendments to the Standing Orders, but the following all take the form of resolutions, in accordance with the practice of trying new procedures by resolution before they are written into the Standing Orders. It may also be desirable to keep all the matters together rather than have them scattered through the Standing Orders. The proposed resolutions have been drafted so as to be consistent with the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Minor changes to the wording of resolutions recommended by the Committee and changes to take account of Senate practice and phraseology are not noted. Proposed resolution 1: Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses Recommendation 35 of the Committee. The Committee substantially adopted a suggested resolution put to it by the Senate Department, which reflected practices already adopted by Senate committees. The following modifications have been suggested to the resolution recommended by the Committee. (1) The resolution recommended by the Committee was limited to ``investigatory'' committees. There would seem to be no reason for not extending it to all committees. (2) Paragraph (5), referring to opportunity for witnesses to raise matters of concern to them before they give evidence, was not included in the Committee's recommendation, but it is suggested that it be included in the resolution. (3) Paragraph (6) of the Committee's recommended resolution would require reasons for refusing a witness's application to be heard in camera to be given in public. It may well be that a witness would prefer not to have the reasons published, and this is reflected in the proposed resolution (paragraph (7)). (4) Words have been added to paragraph (7) to make it clear that a witness may ask to give part of the witness's evidence in private session during the hearing of the witness's evidence. The witness may wish to answer a particular question in camera. (5) Paragraph (9) has been altered to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the chairman to rule on the relevance and necessity of a particular question, but that it is open to the committee to deliberate in private session and to determine whether any particular question, the relevance or necessity of which has been questioned, should be asked. (6) Paragraph (10) has been altered to make it clear that it is open to the committee to determine at once, without going into private session to deliberate, that a question objected to by a witness should not be pressed. It may happen that a Senator immediately withdraws a question to which objection has been taken, and the committee accepts the withdrawal of the question. (7) Paragraph (12) of the Committee's recommended resolution would provide that a committee may give reasonable opportunity for a person to respond to evidence adverse to the person. There would seem to be no reason for not making the reasonable opportunity mandatory, given that a committee may decide what is a reasonable opportunity in the circumstances (paragraph (13) of the proposed resolution). (8) Paragraph (14) has been changed to provide a criterion for a committee to use when determining whether a request for a witness to be accompanied by counsel will be granted, namely, the need for the witness to be accompanied by counsel to ensure the proper protection of the witness. (9) Words have been added to paragraph (15) to make provision for application by a witness for the reimbursement of legal costs where the witness has been granted the right to be accompanied by counsel, and for the committee to consider such application. (10) Paragraph (16) is a new paragraph providing for a witness to make application for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in direct consequence of making a submission to a committee or giving evidence, and for the committee to consider such application. Proposed resolution 2: Procedures for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee Recommendation 21 of the Committee. The Committee did not recommend the terms of a resolution. The procedures recommended by the Committee are cast in the form of conferring protection upon persons ``against whom a complaint has been made''. The difficulty with this formulation is that a reference to the Privileges Committee often does not contain a complaint against any person, but merely refers to a matter which may involve or may give rise to an allegation of contempt against a person. The Privileges Committee has the task of investigating the matter to determine whether any contempt has been committed, and if so, by whom, and of hearing evidence and making a determination in relation to any allegation of contempt which may emerge during the inquiry. In other words, it combines the functions of an investigative agency and a court of first hearing in a criminal matter. A person who is called merely as a witness may turn out to be the person against whom an allegation is made, and different allegations may be made against different people. It would seem, therefore, to be preferable to confer protection on all persons involved in the Privileges Committee's inquiry against whom any allegation is made or any adverse evidence given, regardless of whether those persons are in the position of an ``accused''. This would have a considerable advantage over criminal proceedings in a court. In such proceedings very damaging accusations may be made against witnesses, by cross-examination and submissions, without those witnesses having any opportunity to respond or defend themselves; only the accused is protected, and only in relation to conviction for the specific charges before the court. The proposed resolution had been drafted accordingly, and because of this it is substantially different from the rules suggested by the Committee. The proposed resolution having been drafted in this way, it subsumes recommendation 24 of the Committee, relating to the reputations of ``third persons'' in Privileges Committee inquiries. Other modifications of the Committee's recommendation are as follows: (1) Paragraph (a) of the Committee's recommended rules would give the Privileges Committee discretion to hear evidence in camera. Paragraph (7) of the proposed resolution would allow the Privileges Committee to hear evidence in camera only for the purpose of protecting witnesses or where the Committee considers it otherwise appropriate. It may be that the protection of witnesses should be the sole ground. (2) Paragraph (h) of the Committee's recommended resolution would allow the person ``against whom the complaint is made'' to make submissions ``at the conclusion of the evidence''. This provision is based on the analogy with criminal proceedings. Paragraph (10) of the proposed resolution would allow any person affected by proposed findings of the Committee to make submissions on those findings before the findings are finally formulated and presented to the Senate. Proposed resolution 3: Criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt Recommendation 14 of the Committee. The proposed resolution is cast in the form of a declaration by the Senate that it will take criteria into account in determining whether matters should be referred to the Privileges Committee and whether a contempt has been committed, rather than a resolution expressing an opinion as to how the penal jurisdiction should be exercised as recommended by the Committee. The proposed resolution would also require the Privileges Committee to take the stated matters into account. Paragraph (a) of the proposed resolution contains the principle recommended by the Committee. Other matters not recommended by the Committee are suggested, as follows: paragraph (b): the existence of another remedy, i.e., a civil or criminal action; and paragraph (c): mens rea and reasonable excuse. Proposed resolution 4: Matters to be taken into account by the President in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should be given precedence of other business The Committee did not recommend any specification of the matters to be taken into account in determining whether a motion should have precedence, but it would seem to be desirable to give the President some guidance in exercising this discretion, and to use the same criteria as the Senate itself would adopt to determine whether a contempt has been committed, except those which would involve any judgment of the content of an alleged contempt. The proposed resolution as been drafted accordingly. Proposed resolution 5: Protection of persons referred to in the Senate Recommendation 3 of the Committee. The Committee did not formulate a specific resolution, but suggested a serious of ground rules for incorporation on a trial basis in the Standing Orders. Modifications have been made to the procedures recommended by the Committee, as follows. (1) The Committee suggested that a complaint of misuse of privilege should not contain ``any matter amounting either directly or indirectly to an attack or a reflection on any Member of Parliament''. It is suggested that this criterion not be adopted. It may be extremely difficult for a person to claim that the person has been unfairly attacked in Parliament without at least indirectly reflecting on a member. Such a person may well need to state that a member did not tell the truth, which would be a grave reflection. (2) The Committee suggested procedures that leave the Committee of Privileges at liberty to deal with the matter in any way it thinks fit. The proposed resolution would restrict the Committee to specific procedures and remedies. It is suggested that it would be desirable to do this to prevent undue interference with a member's freedom of speech. Proposed resolution 6: Matters constituting contempts Recommendations 27 to 33 of the Committee. The proposed resolution has been cast in the form of a declaration by the Senate, for the information of the public, as to matters it may treat as contempts. The guidelines recommended by the Committee were taken from the Offences Against the Parliament Bill 1981 introduced by Senator Button. The Committee departed from the provisions of Senator Button's Bill in a few places, and these departures are the subject of suggested modifications. The following comments are offered and modifications suggested in relation to the Committee's suggested guidelines. (1) The Committee suggested, as part of its description of ``molestation'', that it would be a contempt to ``engage in any course of conduct intended to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties as a Member''. It is suggested that this formulation could be regarded as preventing normal, acceptable and democratic methods of influencing members, e.g., telling a member that a vigorous campaign will be conducted against the member in the next election unless the member votes for a particular measure. (2) The Committee suggested a contempt involving a member receiving any benefit on the understanding that the member would be influenced in the discharge of the member's duties, or entering into any arrangement controlling or limiting a member's independence or freedom of action or involving the member acting as the representative of an outside body. Paragraph (2) of the proposed resolution contains the Committee's formulation. In so far as this is intended to relate to bribery and corruption of members, it may be regarded as already covered, to the extent necessary in a declaration for the guidance of the public, by paragraph (2) of the suggested resolution. It may be thought that the wording suggested by the Committee is too wide and could make contempts out of normal, acceptable and democratic activities, eg. a member agreeing to be bound by the decision of the member's party, or accepting the political support of an interest group, or agreeing to make representations on behalf of an interest group. (3) The contempt of impairing the respect due to the authority of a House or a committee has been omitted from paragraph (5), relating to disturbance of meetings. It is suggested that this phrase is too vague. (4) The provisions referring to the publication of in camera evidence and premature publication of reports have been combined in paragraph (16), and drafted so as to be consistent with the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Proposed resolution 7: Raising of matters of privilege Recommendation 20 of the Committee. No substantive changes are suggested to the procedures recommended by the Committee. Proposed resolution 8: Motions relating to contempts Recommendation 22 of the Committee. The Committee recommended that 7 days' notice be given of any motion for the imposition of a penalty for a contempt. It is not clear in the Committee's report or the recommendation whether it was intended that this apply to a motion declaring a person to be guilty of a contempt as well as a motion for imposing a penalty. It has been assumed that this was the intention, and the proposed resolution has been drafted accordingly. Proposed resolution 9: Exercise of freedom of speech Recommendation 4 of the Committee. The following modifications of the Committee's recommended resolution are suggested. (1) The Committee's resolution would enjoin members to take account of the listed matters when reflecting adversely on any person. It is suggested that members should be asked to take the listed matters into account before they make a decision to reflect adversely on any person. The suggested resolution is therefore drafted to request members to consider the matters whenever they speak. (2) The Committee's recommended resolution would ask members to take into account the damage that may be done by unsubstantiated allegations. It is suggested that members be asked to consider the damage that may be done by any allegations, whether substantiated or not. Proposed resolution 10: Reference to Senate proceedings in court proceedings Recommendation 8 of the Committee. The following modifications of the Committee's recommended resolution are suggested. (1) It would not seem to be appropriate for a resolution to reaffirm a law which is not made by resolution in the first place. The terminology of non-derogation has been substituted. (2) Reference is made to any relevant law under section 49 of the Constitution, rather than only article 9 of the Bill of Rights, to take account of any possible interpretation of the effect of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. (3) In order to take full account of the possibility of unauthorised publication of proceedings, it is necessary to refer to any relevant law (such as the Act) and any relevant order. (4) It would not seem to be appropriate for the Senate to be giving leave for evidence to be admitted when the courts have determined that leave is not as a matter of law necessary. The proposed resolution therefore declares that leave is not required. (5) The resolution recommended by the Committee refers only to records and reports of proceedings and documents. It is necessary to refer to any form of evidence relating to proceedings. Proposed resolution 11: Consultation between Privileges Committees Recommendation 26 of the Committee. No modifications of the recommendation are suggested. Senator GARETH EVANS —I also seek leave to make a brief statement relating to that notice. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 17 March 1987, I tabled for consideration draft resolutions of the Senate to carry out those recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which do not require legislation. In a statement I made at that time, which has also been circulated for information, I indicated that the purpose of the tabling was to give an opportunity for senators to consider the resolutions before proceeding to their adoption. Minor drafting, not substantive, amendments to those proposed resolutions have been made since that time, but in essence proposed resolutions in the motion of which I have just given notice are exactly the same as those originally tabled in March last year. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I seek clarification from the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) on timing. Does he propose to bring this matter on tomorrow? Will we have a bit of time to look at what he has brought in, check it, and refresh our memories on it? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-It is the intention to bring it on tomorrow. I have discussed this matter with Senator Durack, who, I understand, had the conduct of it-it being a free vote matter on both sides-for the Opposition. There are some amendments which arise out of Senator Chaney's party room discussions and which Senator Durack will be moving, with my enthusiastic assent, tomorrow. My hope is that we can deal with the matter tomorrow. My reason for giving notice of motion of the resolutions today, in a form which is exactly the same as that of last year, is in order to avoid any possible confusion. Senator Durack —You're too confident about the sovereignty of reason. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that comment deserves to be included in Hansard. I acknowledge the force of that interjection. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the recent report in the Australian Financial Review that Telecom, in partnership with Olex Cables, risks losing a $200m telecommunications contract in Thailand because of the Government's procrastination over its financial backing for the project; (b) notes that the Australian Government professes a commitment to a telecommunications export strategy, and that the Telecom-Olex Cables tender offers an opportunity for the Government to act on this policy; (c) criticises the Government for its inaction to date on this matter and for its continued failure to develop a high technology export base, or address the trade balance of payments deficit, particularly the invisibles component; and (d) reminds the Government of the risk, expressed in the words of one of its Ministers, of becoming `a poor white country in the South Pacific', and notes that this outcome will be assured unless the Government begins to address these matters with the urgency that they require. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) —On behalf of Senator Button I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to establish a Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority, and for related purposes. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 1987 not to broadcast 14 of the 16 Winfield Masters snooker tournament matches produced for ABC television, because of conflict with ABC Board guidelines on advertising and sponsorship; (b) further notes that these guidelines were released in June 1987, one month before ABC management contracted with Mr Eddie Charlton and his sponsor for the production of these programs; (c) expresses its concern over the treatment of the sponsor, who paid out over $300,000 on this tournament; (d) notes the long association of the Rothmans organisation with both the ABC and snooker promotion in Australia; (e) expresses its concern over the likelihood that a proposed world snooker ranking tournament to be played in Australia in 1989 may not be broadcast on the ABC, and will instead be covered by one of the commercial networks, because of the ABC's handling of this matter; and (f) requests that the responsible Minister indicate the steps that are being taken by the ABC and the Government to redress Mr Charlton and his sponsor for the ABC's mismanagement of this affair, and indicate fully the guidelines that will operate should more extensive corporate sponsorship of the ABC be introduced by his Government. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of the Meat Inspection Orders No. 5. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that 1 March is Nuclear Free Pacific Day, the 34th anniversary of the United States BRAVO nuclear test on Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands; (b) notes, too, the continued suffering from radiation-induced diseases of Pacific people and servicemen affected by American, French and British nuclear tests which have been tested in Australia and the Pacific since 1946 and continue to this day; (c) commends the Government for its continued work towards a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which the world has been waiting for since the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963; (d) congratulates the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement for its continued commitment towards the goal of a real Nuclear Free Pacific Zone and an end to US and French colonialism in the region; and (e) calls on the Government to step up its work towards talks on security and arms control in the Pacific as outlined by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in speeches in August and October 1987. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy 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. ACT Schools Authority-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's Report-section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 2. Remuneration Tribunal-1987 review-sections 6 and 7 of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. 3. National Museum of Australia-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's Report-section 38 of the National Museum of Australia Act 1980 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 4. Australia-China Council-annual report 1986-87. 5. Australian Institute of Sport-annual report 1986-87-section 38 of the Australian Institute of Sport Act 1986 and section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. Motion (by Senator Walters) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Motion (by Senator Walters) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.09) —I move: That the Bill now be read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill is to require the Australian Heritage Commission, when it proposes to enter private property either on its list of places that might be entered in the Register of the National Estate or when it proposes to enter property in the Register of the National Estate, to inform the owners of the property, in writing, of that proposal. The Bill requires the Commissioner to give the owners access to documents held by the Commission pertaining to their property, as well as an opportunity to make submissions before registration can occur. It also requires the Commission to take into consideration any submission made by owners of the property when considering that property for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate. The Bill extends these requirements to the Minister when he gives a directive to the Commission to enter private property in the Register of the National Estate and to those properties on the list at the commencement of this legislation. Under the present Act, the situation has frequently arisen that an area of private land, or indeed a private home, has been entered on the list for consideration by the Commission of places that might be entered in the Register (that the Act requires the Commission to keep) without the knowledge of the owners, and further the Commission has eventually entered the property on the Register of the National Estate still without the owner's knowledge. The only requirements in the present Act are:- 1. That the Commission shall not enter a place on the Register unless it has placed a public notice in the Gazette, a local newspaper and a newspaper circulating throughout the State or Territory. This public notice must specify a date by which objections are to be made and the Commission must give due consideration to those objections. However it does not require notification to the owner. Should the owner miss the public notice he is left in the position of being unable to lodge an objection in the prescribed time. 2. Section 27 allows any persons to inspect the Register or the list, and take a copy of, or an extract from an entry in the Register or list. Again if the owner is unaware that his property is listed or entered on the Register of the National Estate this requirement is of no use to him. Mr President, natural justice dictates that this Bill be accepted by the Senate. Amendments, which simply allow an owner to be informed by the Commission that his property is under consideration for inclusion in the National Estate and give him the right to object, can only be accepted and supported. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) adjourned. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. Consideration resumed from 23 February. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I seek the indulgence of the Committee, before we proceed to the other clauses, to go back to clause 12, which we were discussing late last night, with regard to the transfer of matters from judges to registrars. I would like a point of clarification from the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) on that. Although we have dealt with this, I seek leave to go back to clause 12. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Haines, are you seeking recommittal of the clause or would you just like to discuss it? Senator HAINES —No, I just want a matter clarified. Leave granted. Senator HAINES —I was concerned last night at the fact that this clause went through the chamber allowing the judges to give to registrars the handling of all divorce cases on the understanding that the judges had indicated that they would be only non-defended cases. While that may certainly be the case at the moment, I am a little concerned at what might happen some time down the track. I would like some indication from the Minister of how we, in this place, can keep an eye on that. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —by leave-Senator Haines and Senator Durack raised this point last night. It was a very valid one. It ought to have been pointed out by me in those closing stages as we neared 10.30 p.m. that in fact it is presently provided in the Act under section 37a (4) and in relation to judicial registrars by proposed new section 26e the rules of court are to be treated under the Acts Interpretation Act as if they were regulations. Senator Durack —What section? Senator TATE —Section 37a (4) in the principal Act, Senator. Senator Durack —Is that a 1985 amendment? Senator TATE —Yes, it is a 1985 amendment. Proposed new section 26e makes the same provision about rules of court in relation to the jurisdiction delegated to judicial registrars. The effect of those sections is that this Parliament will have the same power to disallow rules of court which it thinks exceed a reasonable scope as it does in relation to any other regulation. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I thank the Minister. At the moment I do not actually happen to have the 1985 amendment. I presume that Senator Durack does. If that is in any way unclear, I am sure he will raise the matter. I thank the Minister. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-We were discussing this matter in relation to the whole issue of the creation of the new office of judicial registrar which I understood the Government had sought to upgrade, even though it baulked at calling the judicial registrar a master because of the influence of the sisterhood in Caucus about using allegedly sexist language. It is absolute rubbish because the notion of master of a supreme court has been well known in the court system for decades. Putting that aside, the end result of this legislation will now be that judges will be able to delegate completely all of their authority-defended divorces, undefended divorces, defended custody cases, and even defended property cases-to either a judicial registrar or a registrar. The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) in answer to Senator Haines this morning said that she should not worry her little head about that aspect, that she can move to disallow a regulation if she does not like it. That really seems to me to be a very sloppy answer, and it is a very sloppy way in which to proceed. I thought that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) had a new concept of the way in which he wanted the Family Court of Australia to operate. I thought that this Bill was supposed to give expression to that new concept. I thought the idea was to introduce in the Family Court a new concept of an intermediate position of judicial registrar, who very clearly and evidently will perform a minor judicial function, between those of the judges and the registrars. In the past the registrars have had important but not particularly significant judicial functions to perform. In my view, the whole thing has become completely confused. I can well understand the great concern of Senator Haines at learning from the Minister just prior to the consideration of this Bill being adjourned last night that in fact the registrars could be given the power to grant divorces in undefended cases. Of course, they could be given the power to grant divorces in defended cases as well. It surprised me to learn that it was even in contemplation that they might be given the power to grant divorces in undefended cases. That matter is connected with the concern that the Opposition is about to express in the terms of the first amendment that it will be moving in a moment. That amendment is concerned with the provision that seeks to give magistrates the power to grant divorces in undefended cases. I think that the Government's whole concept in this matter is thoroughly confusing. It is bad enough that the Bill is confusing and mixed up and couched in convoluted language and all that but, apart from that, the answers provided by the Minister about what the Government's policy is reveal a real poverty of thought on the part of the Government as to what it wants to achieve. The Minister keeps saying that the judges will do these things. We really do not know what the judges will do. The Minister gave a few examples of what the judges might or might not do but then he fell back to the position that ultimately Parliament can disallow what they do. That is all very well, but what is the Government's concept of this new structure? Perhaps the Minister will tell us at the conclusion of this endless debate that we have been having-it has been of quite unnecessary length-what is the Government's concept of the new Family Court structure. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-Though I certainly thank the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) for his comments with regard to the regulations covering the rules of court, I have to point out that regulations are made all year round, and they are frequently made when Parliament is in recess. Such regulations operate until they are disallowed. Though the Government says at the moment that neither it nor the courts would intend that defended divorce cases be given to registrars to determine, it is possible that some time down the track a majority of judges could decide that that is what should be done, and the Parliament would be unable to do anything about it for some time. That will mean that indeed some cases could be passed on to registrars against the wishes, for all we know, of the parties concerned, since there does not seem to be any capacity for the case to go back before the judge in the Family Court if one or more of the parties in a case seeks to have done that. We have no objections to magistrates courts dealing with, as we will come to in the next section, undefended cases. Those people will get divorced whether they go through the song and dance of doing it in the Family Court or in a magistrates court. My major concern is with the possible arbitrary dealing by delegation that could occur with defended cases against the wishes of the parties concerned. I would like the Minister to tell us what would happen in the possibly unlikely case of the rules of court throwing up a situation where a defended case could be delegated to a registrar despite the wishes of the parties concerned and the Parliament not being able to do anything about it for some months. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I would like clarification also. As it stands, I said in my speech at the second reading stage that I believed that magistrates, who in some States are not even legal practitioners, should not have the power to preside over undefended cases of divorce. I said that because I believe that the main reason we have judges of the Family Court is that judges must take into consideration the arrangements made for the children of parents involved in an undefended divorce. I oppose magistrates attending to undefended cases. Now that registrars will be able to preside over undefended cases, they must, if they are going to do their job properly, take into consideration the arrangements made for the children. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that registrars will be able also to preside over defended cases in divorce where there is a wrangle over the children? Senator Durack —And custody cases? Senator WALTERS —And custody cases. Will they be able to preside over anything that is delegated to them? What is the point of having judges if they are to be allowed to delegate any of their powers to a registrar? That is quite beyond me. I had no idea that the registrars of the court would be given such unlimited powers. It underlines once again, as I said all day yesterday, that for the mighty dollar this Government is liable to do anything to downgrade the family. Registrars or magistrates cannot deal with divorce cases, in my opinion. It is a judge's prerogative to do that. The Government is going to allow magistrates to take over the whole or any part of a judge's duties just to save some dollars. It is bad enough that the proposed legislation mentions magistrates. I would like to point out to honourable senators that magistrates do not have to be legal practitioners in every State, although in Tasmania they do and they can take over undefended cases. However, now registrars will be able to handle both types of cases. Surely to heavens, the Minister does not agree with that. I join in asking for a clarification on the matter. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —by leave-It is true that the legislation as drafted will enable the judges to make rules of court which could bestow jurisdiction on registrars, as on judicial registrars, to deal with both defended and undefended divorce applications. But, in the discussions with the judges which the Government has undertaken it has never been put by the Government-it is not part of the policy of the Government-that registrars should deal with defended divorce applications. Therefore, it is expected that if the judges make rules of court to confer on registrars undefended divorce application jurisdiction, that would be in harmony with the Government's expectations, although if the Parliament were still upset about that it could be disallowed. But the Government does not have a policy of conferring on the registrars of any jurisdiction in regard to defended divorce applications. Should such a rule of court be made I am sure that policy would be invoked at the proper parliamentary stage by the disallowance procedures. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-What does one do if the rules of court allow that and they are brought down during a parliamentary recess? That is a very real problem. It is one that we need to confront today before we go any further with this discussion. If the rules of court are changed during a parliamentary recess to allow the judges to refer to registrars defended divorce cases-whether or not they have the approval of the parties is irrelevant-what do we, as a parliament, do if it is not what we want, short of recalling the Parliament? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —by leave-I have no immediate answer to the lapse of time that could occur between the making of the rule of court and the disallowance by either chamber of the Parliament. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I thought that on 18 February when I raised this matter I had been done. That was the impression I got when I had the temerity to raise the matter during the committee stage. As reported at page 287 of Hansard, I referred to clause 9, which establishes judicial registrars. I talked about the power of the judicial registrars and pointed to proposed new section 26b (6), which states: The Judicial Registrars shall have, in addition to the powers delegated to them under subsection (1), such other powers (if any) as are conferred on them by this Act, the regulations and the Rules of Court. I may not have expressed at that time my fear about the way in which this delegation of powers may take place under the rules of the court. I said: I feel that it is important that we know what the judicial registrars are . . . Therefore, I would like the Minister to let the chamber know what he envisages are to be the functions of the judicial registrars and why clause 26b (6) is in the Bill at all. Senator Tate then said: Clause 26b (6), which deals with the powers of judicial registrars, refers to such powers conferred on them by the Act, the regulations and the rules of court. I think that that clause is just a simple recognition of that fact. He said nothing about what we now know to be the case, which is that delegation of all the functions of the judges may be made to these judicial registrars. That was not stated. Then Senator Tate said: As Senator Harradine said, the regulations must be made in order to carry out the provisions of the Act. That is fairly clear. Section 123 of the principal Act provides for the making of rules of court. Of course, they deal with the practice and procedures to be followed in the Family Court. Almost the whole alphabet is set out under section 123 (1), concerning the making of the rules of court. There is a recognition in clause 26b (6) that the powers that may be conferred on the judicial registrars simply can be either directly imposed or granted by the statute itself, or can be conferred by the regulations made under the statute and by the majority of the judges making rules of court for the practice and procedures of the court. I think is is fairly straightforward in that respect. Not being terribly familiar with all of that, I accepted what the Minister said, feeling that it was sort of in the manner of administrative procedures and administrative functions. I admit that on closer reading of what the Minister said I should have perhaps read between the lines and realised that there was more to it than immediately met the eye. Now that this matter has been clarified further we see that these judicial registrars can be given functions which I believe at that stage of the Committee no-one in this chamber-perhaps even including the Minister and the Government-realised. In fact, the powers that can be conferred on the judicial registrars are the whole range of powers which are those of the judges. I believe therefore that it would be appropriate to recommit this clause for consideration by the Committee so that the Committee can have further discussion on it and an amendment can be moved. I would be proposing an amendment to the clause. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —by leave-I was not trying to leave things between the lines unsaid and in fact-- Senator Harradine —No, I did not mean that. There was no reflection. Senator TATE —No, I know that. Yesterday in elaboration I did make as clear as I could to the chamber that in discussions held between the Government and the judges in relation to judicial registers the sorts of areas which were being spoken about were the delegation of power to deal with undefended divorce applications, unlimited property jurisdiction where the parties agree, contested property jurisdiction to $100,000 without consent of the parties, approval of section 87 deeds, ex parte applications, interlocutory proceedings and children's matters. That was the range of matters which I indicated to the chamber the judges were prepared to confer on judicial registrars. In relation to registrars, the judges have been involved in discussions which have not led to an indication by them of a preparedness to confer jurisdiction in relation to undefended divorce applications but the Government has indicated that it would be prepared to see that jurisdiction conferred. That is the situation at the moment in those discussions. I am simply saying that those rules of court will be subject to disallowance by either chamber of the Parliament. Because the Government will be involved in discussions with the Family Court judges in relation to these jurisdictional matters and their delegation, the judges will be on notice as a result of those discussions. If, by some extraordinary macho decision, they decide that despite it being clearly indicated that the Government would not concur with, say, the bestowal of jurisdiction to deal with defended divorce applications, and if rules of court were made along those lines, clearly, the Government would disallow them in the House of Representatives at the first opportunity. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I say, with respect to the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), that that will be the case if the Government indicates that it is opposed to what is going on. If the Government indicates to the judges that it would not oppose the transfer of defended cases to registrars-let us leave judicial registrars out of this for the time being and just concentrate on clause 12-that means that a disallowance motion will not be moved in the House of Representatives, but I do not think there will be a time in the near future when the Senate is in the hands of the government, no matter which party is in power. For the judges to proceed on the understanding that they can extend the jurisdiction of defended cases to registrars just because the lower House is not going to do anything about it, when the Senate could well be opposed to it, is a bit unrealistic. Indeed, it raises the very situation that I raised a moment ago-namely, the rules of court being changed during the recess, the regulation not coming up in this chamber for disallowance until some months later and cases having been transferred and possibly dealt with in the interim. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-I thoroughly agree with the concerns expressed by Senator Haines and also by Senator Harradine. We obviously will have to take steps to do something about the situation. What worries me even more is the way in which the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) is failing to explain the Government's concept of the new Family Court structure. He just reiterated, in answer to Senator Harradine, some information he gave to the Committee last night, I think in answer to me, as to what the Government has in mind concerning powers to be delegated to judicial registrars, who, as I understand it, have a much higher status in the Government's mind than registrars. He has stated that the Government has indicated in discussions with the judges, and apparently agreement has been reached with the judges, that the judicial registrars will deal with undefended divorces, not defended divorces. I say in passing-I think I am speaking on behalf of the Opposition-that I would not be troubled about judicial registrars, because of their intended high status, dealing with undefended divorces. But now we find in clause 12 that, although the Government's policy is that judicial registrars deal only with undefended divorces and not with defended divorces-this situation concerns Senator Haines and certainly concerns me-the Government apparently has not had any discussion with the judges in relation to the registrars but is giving the judges the power to do something which it does not intend they should do-namely, to delegate the power to deal with defended divorces. When I asked Senator Tate last night why this very wide delegated power was being given to registrars, he said, `There might be some cases when they are on circuit in a remote part of the country and it would be convenient for them to be able to deal with these matters'. The word `convenient' would apply to the question of dealing with defended as well as undefended divorces. Senator Tate —I certainly did not say that. Senator DURACK —The Minister did not say that, but the argument would apply equally to defended and undefended divorces. The legislation is here giving judges the power to delegate a very wide jurisdiction. Senator Haines has quite rightly pointed out that that power could be exercised before the Parliament could do anything about it. I come back to my basic concern, which Senator Tate has not answered. What is the Government's concept of the new Court structure? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —by leave-I cannot indicate any more than I have-namely, that it is intended that judicial registrars take on a portion of the jurisdiction currently exercised by Family Court judges in relation to undefended divorce applications and in relation to some contested matters-ones that I have reiterated to Senator Harradine. Senator Durack —It doesn't include contested custody cases? Senator TATE —Yes, it does. Senator Durack —Contested cases? Senator TATE —Yes, it can deal with custody cases. Minor custody cases can be dealt with even if they are contested. Senator Haines —There is no such thing as a minor contested custody case. Senator Walters —They are all major. Senator TATE —Anyway, that is the concept-that they can deal with contested custody cases. I accept that the judges have indicated a preparedness to deal with that sort of matter by way of delegation to judicial registrars. In relation to registrars, the judges have not indicated their preparedness to delegate any of that judicial power that they hold in relation, in particular, to applications for dissolution of a marriage, even undefended ones. I merely said that the Government agree with the position if the judges so decided, where registrars were given undefended divorce application jurisdiction, and that would be compatible with the Government's policy. Senator Walters —Mr Chairman-- Senator Haines —Mr Chairman, I was going to seek leave to have this clause recommitted. The CHAIRMAN —I will call on Senator Walters in a moment. This situation is that the Committee is technically debating clause 15 of the Bill. Clause 12 was passed last night. By leave, Senator Haines asked some questions and I have been allowing discussion to go on, essentially about clause 12. It is an untidy procedure, but I am in the hands of the Committee as to what it wants done. At the moment leave is granted to ask questions on clause 12, but clause 12 is not technically before the Committee. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I want to pick up what Senator Tate has just indicated. He has told us, I believe, that the judicial registrars are not permitted to preside over defended divorce cases, only non-defended divorce cases. However, they can preside over custody cases. Is that correct? If so, I would like to ask a further question. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —by leave-I am advised that the intention is that the judges-we might call them the true judges of the Family Court-be relieved of so much of the jurisdiction as would distract them from dealing with custody cases, but there may be aspects of custody, for example, refining the question of access-the custodial parent already having been designated somewhere along the line, the question of access comes up within the custody arrangements-that could be dealt with by a judicial registrar. That is the type of custody matter that might be dealt with by a judicial registrar, not so much the primary question as to which of the separating or divorcing parents will get the custody of the child. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-Following that answer, I ask the Minister where that is pointed out in the legislation. It is completely and utterly against all common sense to allow a judicial registrar to deal with only non-defended cases, but then to allow them to get into the terribly emotive and bitter area of custody. Why are most divorces defended? By far the majority of divorces are defended only on the grounds of custody or property rights. There would be very few divorce cases defended on the grounds of not wanting a divorce. The Minister is not allowing these judicial registrars to preside over defended divorce cases, but he is permitting them to preside over custody cases. The Minister says, `In fact, they will deal only with minor custody cases'. He then gives access as an example. Heavens above! The Minister may know that I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act which reviewed the Act. Some of the most bitter arguments over custody concerned access. One cannot in all common sense allow a judicial registrar to deal with custody matters if he cannot deal with defended divorces. It does not make sense. That does not take into account the ordinary registrars whose powers will be greater than those of the judicial registrars, anyway. They can deal with almost anything. I think that the whole matter must be looked at again. We should report progress until the Government gets its act together. Recommittal of clause 12. Motion (by Senator Haines)-by leave-agreed to: That clause 12 be recommitted. Recommittal of clause 9. Motion (by Senator Harradine)-by leave-proposed: That clause 9 be recommitted. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.47) —I will not waste the time of the Committee by pressing for a division if the Opposition and the Australian Democrats agree with the motion for recommittal. I would like some indication from them. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.48) —I am particularly concerned about the judicial registrar dealing with access matters and custody cases. I must challenge the Minister's earlier statement that these are minor matters. There is no such thing as a minor matter when the custody case is being defended or there is a dispute over access. I think we need to look again at that element of clause 9. Question resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 15 and 16-by leave-taken together. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.50) —I move: (6) Page 7, clause 16, lines 5 to 11, leave out proposed section 44a, insert the following section: `` `44a. The regulations may provide that proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage may not be instituted in, or transferred to, a court of summary jurisdiction other than a prescribed court.'.''. The original provision in relation to the transfer of matters to a court of summary jurisdiction required the applicant for an undefended dissolution to file the application in the Family Court of Australia, and the Family Court to transfer the matter to the court of summary jurisdiction requested by the applicant. During the summer recess we had the benefit of discussions with many jurisdictions. The States fundamentally put the point of view-- Senator Durack —You wanted to pass this before Christmas. Senator TATE —I am glad that we took the opportunity over the summer recess to get some of these matters dealt with. They said that the procedure was administratively inefficient; it would delay the finalisation of dissolution applications; and it would be detrimental to applicants who wished to seek advice from the clerk of the local court or the chamber magistrate, who would then have to forward papers to the Family Court. The Family Court file may contain papers relevant to the determination of the dissolution application. These would not be transferred by the Family Court. Some courts of summary jurisdiction are not serviced by a resident magistrate and long delays could occur if such a court were specified. We took all of those matters into consideration. The new proposal allows the filing of applications directly in a court of summary jurisdiction. The States will provide a list of courts of summary jurisdiction where there is a resident magistrate. These will be prescribed as the courts in which applications may be filed. That is the purpose of the amendment. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.53) —I would like to speak generally about the concepts of clauses 15 and 16 because the Opposition is opposed to the clauses and to the amendment. We do not think that the amendment improves the clauses, although from a practical point of view I must concede that it does so. We will not oppose the amendment, on the basis that we will oppose the clause, if it is amended, just as we oppose it in its unamended form. Clauses 15 and 16 are designed to make a very major amendment to the Family Law Act to enable-as they stand now-any court of summary jurisdiction to grant an undefended divorce. Clauses 15 and 16 would allow magistrates courts, on the face of it, to deal with defended divorces, but a subsequent clause restricts this provision to undefended cases. Clause 15 takes away any restriction on magistrates courts to deal with the granting of a dissolution of marriage, whether it is defended or undefended. Clause 16 states: Proceedings . . . may not be instituted in a court of summary jurisdiction. So clause 15 states that they can be instituted, and clause 16 says that they cannot be, which is a very extraordinary way of drafting legislation. Clause 16 goes on to provide that where an application for the dissolution of marriage is made in the Family Court, the applicant may, if he wishes, seek to have it determined in a specified court of summary jurisdiction. That is decided by the applicant, and the matter is then transferred. Subsequently, if it becomes defended, some other clause provides for it to be sent back to the Family Court. This is a most extraordinary, convoluted drafting concept. The Government has now realised this. The Minister has just moved an amendment which leaves the power for courts of summary jurisdiction to have jurisdiction to deal with matters of dissolution of marriage, provided that a regulation be made to specify certain courts of summary jurisdiction to which the matters can be transferred or in which they can be instituted. So instead of the concept of having to start a matter in the Family Court and then have it transferred, apparently it can be started in certain specified courts of summary jurisdiction. Presumably under certain parts of this legislation if the matter is defended it comes back to the Family Court. So the end result of the Government's attempts in this field, confused and convoluted as they are, is that an application for undefended divorce can be commenced and completed in certain yet unspecified courts of summary jurisdiction. Perhaps the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that until the regulation is implemented applicants can start proceedings in any court of summary jurisdiction they like. There are no regulations which restrict them. So we are back again to the same problem Senator Haines has already identified in relation to the powers of registrars. If regulations are not made, proceedings can be commenced in any court. We really do have a most confused and convoluted piece of legislation, but that is par for the course. We have seen this in the legislation so far, and the Minister seems to be unable to give us any satisfactory explanation. I might add that this Bill was introduced by the Government last October. The Government proposed to have it passed before we rose for the Christmas recess. The Opposition proposed that the Bill be referred, because of difficulties with it, to a Senate committee. The Government opposed that and it was only because it had so much other business, because it had organised itself so badly in the last session, that at the very last minute it agreed to have this Family Court jurisdiction Bill stood over until this session. That is why we are debating it now. Had the Government had its way, it would have passed this completely inadequate and impractical proposal contained in the Bill. As the Minister just admitted, some more difficulties have been discovered over the Christmas recess. The legislation the Government has brought into this place is an indication of its incompetence. It brought it in last October and I do not know for how long before that it had been talking about these things. From what the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has told us, he has been talking about doing something about this for ages. Yet, last October the Government could not get it right, although that did not worry it. As I said, had the Government not run out of time before Christmas the legislation would have been passed in what it now agrees is an inadequate form. The Opposition's objection to the scheme is far more fundamental than that. This scheme, as it is to be amended by the Government, will enable certain specified courts of summary jurisdiction to grant dissolution of marriage in undefended cases. But the Minister has indicated that those courts will be those presided over by a resident magistrate, so at least the Government has cut it back to magistrates. Under its original proposal, it referred to any court of summary jurisdiction. I have not checked all around Australia, but certainly in remote areas of my State of Western Australia courts of summary jurisdiction are often presided over by justices of the peace, and I am told that in some remote parts of New South Wales they might be presided over not only by justices of the peace but also by commissioners of declarations or even police officers. That was the way the legislation was introduced into this Parliament. That is the form in which the Government proposed it should be passed. Now the Government has had some second thoughts and at least has confined it to magistrates. The Opposition believes that this is a wrong course to take. As I said when I spoke in the second reading debate, we believe that the dissolution of marriage should be taken in the same serious way as entering into marriage. It should be seen to be a very solemn, serious act for parties to a marriage to take, and it should be dealt with within the Family Court itself. Up until now even undefended dissolutions of marriage-Senator Walters pointed out that most of them are-have been pronounced in court by a Family Court judge. Until recently, of course, the parties had to make an appearance but as a result of amendments made by this Government two or three years ago in certain cases neither the parties nor their lawyers need make an appearance. So the Government has already whittled down the solemnity and significance of dissolution in earlier amendments, and now it proposes to weaken this very serious and important event by allowing it to be done in a magistrates court. There is clearly some practical argument that in remote parts of Australia this might be appropriate, where there is a magistrate sitting but there is not a Family Court judge. That is the only thing I can see in favour of it. Certainly the object is to have regionalisation of the Family Court. That is proceeding. If people want to go through this solemn act of dissolving their marriage, surely it is not too great a burden for them to have that done actually by the Family Court itself. When all is said and done, as I have pointed out, as a result of previous amendments, in an ordinary, simple case of undefended divorce where there are no children the parties do not have to appear anyway. Only in those cases where children are involved will there now be any added convenience of having the matter dealt with by a magistrate rather than in the Family Court itself. What is the price being paid for this additional convenience that the Government wants to bestow upon people seeking a divorce? A matter may come before a magistrate, who has no assistance from the Family Court counsellors. If there are children involved in an undefended divorce, the court has to be satisfied that proper arrangements have been made for the welfare of those children, and that facility is not available to magistrates. Further, if a magistrate is not satisfied with the arrangements that parties have put to him he cannot readily have that dealt with and be advised upon it, as of course can be done within the Family Court itself. Our opposition to this proposal is deeper than that. As I said earlier, we believe that the dissolution of marriage is just as serious and as solemn an act as entering into marriage. The indication of this Parliament to the partners of a marriage should always be that we believe they should take seriously the dissolution of their marriage, that they should take it just as seriously as entering into marriage. Therefore, that is something that is a prime responsibility of the Family Court. It is the most solemn and important decision the Family Court makes and it should be done by the Family Court and should not be shunted off to a court of lower jurisdiction. Although I am sure that many magistrates would be quite capable of exercising this jurisdiction, they clearly are in an inferior court and this very solemn, serious and important decision should be pronounced by the Family Court itself, preferably by the judges of that court. We have conceded that perhaps the new office of judicial registrar, which is a judicial office, may do that in the case of an undefended divorce, but by and large we believe that that most important jurisdiction should be retained and should be exercised by the Family Court judges. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.06) —Can the Minister tell me the qualifications of the magistrates in the various States throughout Australia? The Act states that a judicial registrar must have certain qualifications for appointment: he must have been a judge or a legal practitioner of the High Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for not less than five years and, by reason of training, experience and personality, should be a suitable person to deal with matters of family law. Can the Minister tell me the qualifications for a magistrate who will be dealing with similar cases in the various States? Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.07) —Senator Durack, on behalf of the Opposition parties, has indicated that they will be opposing clauses 15 and 16, which extend to magistrates courts the jurisdiction and capacity to deal with non-defended divorce cases. Senator Durack has argued that the reason for that is that divorce should be treated as solemnly as a marriage and that it is as important a step as a marriage. I would certainly agree with that, but, if he thinks that there is something solemn and awe inspiring about the manner in which the Family Court in States, at least States other than Western Australia, deals with non-contested divorces, I suggest he sit at the back of one of those courts, as I have done from time to time, and watch the rapidity with which divorces are granted in non-contested cases. I spent one entire day in the Family Court in South Australia. With no exaggeration at all, some of those matters were dealt with in two and a half minutes flat and there was certainly nothing particularly solemn about that except that everybody was fairly quiet. To argue that people should hive themselves off to the Family Court or wait until it comes to them on circuit is, I think, overlooking the fact that in a non-defended case the parties and the judge concerned deal with each other almost in matters of seconds rather than in any long and serious period. For example, we do not insist that marriages be conducted in cathedrals. We allow people to marry where they like. Indeed, we do not even insist any more that they be married by clergy, however much those of us who were married in churches believe that that is a more appropriate way of going about celebrating a marriage. Simply to argue that magistrates courts are inappropriate areas because it is somehow more solemn and appropriate to be dealt with in a Family Court, I think is perhaps just a little specious, even for Senator Durack. What seems to be overlooked is that there is inherent in this move a considerable benefit, financial as well as in time, to people whose divorces are not contested where there is no chance of the divorce being defended. In particular this is true of people who live in country areas, who either take on board a city-based solicitor who can then appear for them in the Family Court in that capital city, which means that at some stage the parties concerned travel into the city at some expense to brief the solicitor, or take on a country town solicitor who then has to travel to the city if they do not want to waste time waiting for the Family Court to circuit. I will leave the Western Australian situation out of this since it is different. There is no doubt that for many women it is an expensive, time-consuming process, in the case of a divorce not being defended, for them either to take their children with them or have them looked after while they go to the city to brief a solicitor or, alternatively, appear themselves. To have undefended matters-and I think that that needs to be stressed-dealt with by the magistrates court seems to be not a particular concern. It does not seem that it is in any way downgrading marriage or, indeed, the process of divorce. These people are going to get divorced, they are going to distribute property, they are going to deal with custody matters and access and, if these matters are not in contention, there is no reason for them to go to the extra expense, time and trauma of either appearing in the Family Court, or having their solicitor appear for them, or waiting for the Court to circuit. So far as we are concerned, magistrates courts should deal with uncontested matters of this sort. After all, we are not cutting back the time period before which a divorce can be filed. We are not saying, `If it is uncontested and we decide we are going to get divorced today, let us go and do it in a magistrates court tomorrow'. There is no diminution of that time. All the Government is saying here and what we are supporting is that, if it is uncontested, it can be dealt with locally, conveniently, less expensively and less traumatically by allowing the magistrates courts to deal with the matter. I would have thought that for many people who live in rural and isolated areas this is of considerable assistance, and that point ought not to be overlooked. We make too many laws in this country that, while of benefit to people who live in the city, quite often disadvantage people in country areas. Given that the divorce will occur, given that it is not defended and given the expense, time and other difficulties facing country people, I would have thought that this ought to be accepted-given that divorce is accepted. I say that as somebody who has been very happily married to the same man for nearly 21 years. It is distressing to see the number of marriages that are neither longstanding nor happy and the trauma that occurs not only to the individuals concerned, but to their children. If we are going to allow divorce-and I think it is appalling for anybody to suggest that we should retain unhappy, violent or traumatic relationships, willy-nilly-it is better at least to have sensible arrangements for them, including the jurisdiction of the courts which handle these matters. We will not be supporting the Opposition's amendments with regard to clauses 15 and 16. From memory, those are Senator Durack's first and third amendments. Senator Durack —The third amendment is consequential. Senator HAINES —The third amendment is consequential on the Opposition's first amendment. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.09) —Just before Senator Tate answers my previous question on the qualifications of a magistrate versus the qualifications of a judicial registrar, can I just say that Senator Haines chose to ignore the plight of the children. It was quite deliberate, because on three occasions during her speech I did say, `What about the children?'. Both Senator Haines and I have pointed out that undefended divorce cases will occur. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Marriage counsellors have a very difficult job to perform. Once a person approaches them for advice after having decided that he or she will proceed with a divorce action, they are faced with the very hard job of trying to effect a reconciliation, and I do not believe that such reconciliation occurs in very many cases. I agree with the comment of Senator Haines that an undefended divorce case will certainly go ahead whether it is heard before a judicial registrar, a registrar, a magistrate or a judge. The point that Senator Haines deliberately ignored-it was deliberate because I drew it to her attention by way of interjection-is that children are involved in such undefended divorce cases. The legislation provides that the arrangements for the children must be the first priority of the judge. Two people who have decided to get a divorce will make arrangements for the children. I guess that in the majority of cases those arrangements will be carefully thought out and will indeed be in the interests of the children. However, sometimes they are not. Indeed, it was stated regularly in evidence before the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act that in many cases when the husband just disappears for a certain number of years and the wife is left with the children, or vice versa, the arrangements made for the children in an undefended divorce case are not always adequate or in the best interests of the children. It is the function of the judge to ensure that his first priority is being satisfied with the arrangements made for the children. The Australian Democrats and the Government are ignoring that aspect. As I say, Senator Haines made reference only to the two adults in a divorce case and ignored completely the plight of the children. I put that matter to the Minister, but I ask him also to answer my previous question about the qualifications of magistrates eligible to hear divorce cases as opposed to the qualifications of judicial registrars. The Bill provides that a judicial registrar must either have been a judge of a court or a legal practitioner of the High Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for not less than five years; and such a person must, by reason of training, experience and personality, be a suitable person to deal with matters of family law. Will the qualifications required of magistrates be similar to those? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.18) —The qualifications required of magistrates are not similar to those required of judicial registrars. The special qualities to be found in judicial registrars are put at such a high level because they will be dealing with certain contested matters, as I made clear. The fact is that those magistrates courts which will be selected to hear divorce cases will be chosen following discussions with the States concerned. Magistrates courts in a State jurisdiction cannot be prescribed by regulation unless the State concerned is prepared to give its concurrence. It is intended that the courts selected will be those that have resident magistrates. The qualifications of the magistrates may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it will be up to the State concerned to provide a list, indicating which courts will be adequate to perform in the jurisdiction that is to be bestowed by this Bill. I turn to the question of children. As Senator Walters will know, those magistrates who are selected to function in the jurisdiction that will deal with the dissolution of marriage will have an obligation under section 63, to which I think Senator Walters referred, to be satisified that the welfare of the children has been attended to. However, just to make it clear, section 46 of the principal Act makes it clear in relation to custody matters, as does the amending Bill in relation to the dissolution of marriage matters, that custody matters can be dealt with by magistrates only with the consent of the parties. If the parties disagree on that aspect and one of them does not want the magistrate to function in that jurisdiction, the matter will be transferred to the Family Court. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.21) —I asked the Minister for Justice whether he could tell me what qualifications magistrates in the various States must have. I presume that the Minister does not have that information available. Senator Tate —I do not have it available. Senator WALTERS —But the Minister said that such qualifications vary considerably from State to State. Senator Tate —I said that they vary. Senator WALTERS —Before this discussion concludes I ask the Minister to find out for me just what qualifications magistrates in the various States are required to have. For instance, in my State magistrates must have been legal practitioners. I am unaware of the requirements in the other States with respect to magistrates. I think it is imperative that we be made aware before this discussion concludes what qualifications magistrates in New South Wales and all the other States are required to have. The Minister told me that magistrates will be dealing with undefended divorce cases involving children and custody matters. If a case involves the determination of custody matters, then it will be a defended case, and bitterness attaches to such cases. The Minister has ensured that the qualifications of the judicial registrars will be most suitable for the handling of uncontested divorce cases. They will be operating in the Family Court of Australia where they will have the facilities of the Family Court at their disposal. If a judicial registrar is not happy with the arrangements made by the parents in an undefended divorce case, he has available to him all of the facilities of the Family Court to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made. If a magistrate in Timbuktu, or wherever he happens to be, presiding over an uncontested divorce case is most unhappy about the arrangements that have been made for the children involved in a divorce, what facilities will he have at his disposal and what qualifications will he have for understanding or taking into consideration those arrangements? Will that magistrate have the same qualifications as a judicial registrar? The Minister has told me that he will not. The qualifications of the judicial registrar have been set out very clearly, but the qualifications of magistrates who will be dealing with the same sorts of cases could not be less clear. That is why we on this side of the House are opposed to the Government's decision to downgrade divorces, as Senator Haines has said, to matters that are dealt with in only two or three minutes, not by judges who have judicial experience, not by judicial registrars who will have certain qualifications, but by magistrates who will not necessarily have any qualifications that will cause them even to think about whether the arrangements for the children are suitable. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.25) —The fact is that in that situation the magistrate can adjourn the case and require that reports be provided by the court counselling and welfare services under section 62a of the principal Act. He has the ability to do it. As we know, magistrates deal already with custody matters, usually immediately upon the parties coming to their own arrangement to separate. Senator Walters —But that is not long term. Senator TATE —No, but in relation to when it comes before them as a matter for decision at the time of the dissolution of the marriage being recognised by the courts-as I say, they have experience in dealing with custody matters; many magistrates deal with custody matters already-if they are not happy with an arrangement that is being proposed, they can seek further reports. Senator Durack —But where are the counsellors-out in the back of Bourke? Senator TATE —If the magistrate requires a report by a counsellor that will be provided. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.26) —The counsellors are in Sydney. If the magistrate is out in the back of Bourke, he will not be able to get counsellors up there in a hurry. Again, there are two questions. The first is: How does he cope without the facilities of the Family Court, the facilities of the counsellors? The second is: Will the Minister make available to me before this discussion is over the qualifications of the magistrates in the various States? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.27) —I am attempting to get that information. I am doing my best to get it. I cannot absolutely guarantee it. Senator Walters —Thank you very much. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.27) —This amendment certainly does not meet with my support. I will be vigorously opposing it, because it adds to the trivialisation of marriage in our society which has taken place since the institution of the Family Law Act in 1975. Since that time-that is, in the 10 years between 1976 and 1986-there have been 477,381 divorces and the number of children affected by marriages ending in divorce was 573,517. In addition, there is an enormous cost to our society in monetary terms. The cost of marriage breakdown in Australia to Federal taxpayers alone is over $2 billion. But, more particularly my attention, and the attention of other senators, should be directed to the trauma and personal cost involved in marriage breakdowns and the fact that the administration, the judges-whoever is to administer this law-are administering an unjust law, because the law does not take into account, so far as the definition of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, the conduct of either party. It is the only law I know of that does not take into account the conduct of the parties concerned, with the exception, I should say, of certain laws relating to compensation for accidents. Marriage is no accident. The dissolution should not be regarded as some sort of accident over which nobody has any control. Yet, this Parliament is treating it as such. This Bill is a further example of the philosophical attitude that is the basis, and indeed the root cause, of many of the problems which confront our society. That problem is that persons do not meet the test of maturity. The test of maturity is where persons take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. We in this Parliament are condoning the irresponsibility of some people who do not take and are not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. So far as the dissolution of marriage is concerned-and I use the terms which are contained in the legislation-certain actions or certain principles are to be observed by the courts. I would like the Minister to respond and tell me and the chamber how these principles will be applied by the prescribed courts to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court will be transferred. I note amendment No. 6, as Senator Durack said, amends the previous clause 16. Whereas the previous clause 16 provided that proceedings for divorce may not be instituted in a court of summary jurisdiction, it is now proposed, as I read the amendment-and I may be wrong here-that applications for dissolution of marriage may be instituted in a court of summary jurisdiction, which is a prescribed court. I am not too sure in my own mind what is meant by `a prescribed court' because those courts will be prescribed by regulation. I know the Minister has dealt with this, but I am a little unclear about it. The underlying principle is established in section 43 of the Family Law Act, which states: 43. The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act or any other Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to- (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; (b) the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children; (c) the need to protect the rights of children and to promote their welfare; and (d) the means available for assisting parties to a marriage to consider reconciliation or the improvement of their relationship to each other and to the children of the marriage. Frankly, if some of the Family Court jurisdiction is going to courts of summary jurisdiction, then what are the guidelines to be provided to those courts in order for them to apply the principles that are established in section 43 as I have just relayed them to the Senate? Section 14 of the Family Law Act states: Where proceedings for a dissolution of marriage have been instituted, or financial or custodial proceedings have been instituted by a party to a subsisting marriage, it is the duty of the Judge or magistrate constituting the court and of every legal practitioner representing a party to give consideration, from time to time, to the possibility of a reconciliation of the parties. If the Government is insistent upon this amendment and is insistent that in certain cases undefended matters-I will deal with this later-are to go to courts of summary jurisdiction, what arrangements are to be made for those courts to be apprised of the availability of reconciliation services in the areas where the application is lodged and where, as I think the legislation says, the parties to the marriage reside? If there are to be certain savings, where is the money to be made available to the reconciliation counselling services which now find it very difficult, because of their lack of funds, to meet the demands that are made of them? I go to the question of undefended matters. Courts of summary jurisdiction will not be dealing only with undefended matters. The undefended matter here is divorce. That is the case under section 48 of the legislation, which provides for only a very limited ability on the part of a party to a marriage to oppose the application for a dissolution. That is why it is so important that the courts concerned apply the other provisions of the legislation in regard to counselling and reconciliation counselling. As the Minister has correctly pointed out, section 63 of the legislation provides that a decree nisi of dissolution of marriage does not become absolute unless the court, by order, has declared that it is satisfied that the only children of the marriage who have not attained the age of 18 years are the children specified in the order and that proper arrangements in all the circumstances have been made for the welfare of those children. That question has been canvassed here by Senator Durack and Senator Walters. It concerns me that these courts of summary jurisdiction may not be capable of adequately carrying out that provision in the legislation. Furthermore, I am sure that it would be known to the Minister that whilst some of these matters may be undefended, they are not, in a sense, uncontested. Some of these cases-I suppose that all of us have had constituents come to us about them from time to time-involve great trauma. Very often women, in particular, are placed under great pressure to enter into certain agreements as to custody and particularly as to property. It concerns me that these courts of summary jurisdiction may not have the ability or experience to determine whether pressure has been applied in relation to property matters. I acknowledge that a number of these courts deal with property matters already-- Senator Tate —Custody matters. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. The whole concept of this clause trivialises the institution of marriage. In saying that, I am aware of the great failing of the Family Court in carrying out its role under section 43 of the legislation. I do not believe that the Family Court gives due attention to section 43. I do not think that it applies the principles as they should be applied, as it was considered they should be applied when section 43 was inserted into the original legislation. Nor do I believe that the Court gives sufficient consideration to the conciliation and, in particular, the reconciliation provisions in the legislation. I wonder whether the new courts will have a fresher approach to this matter and what guidelines will be provided to them. I would be obliged if the Minister would supply to the Parliament, either now or later, information on what guidelines will be given to the courts of summary jurisdiction in respect of their obligation to carry out the principles contained in sections 43, 14 and 63 of the Family Law Act. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.43) —I am not sure whether I can give an undertaking regarding a further elaboration of the important principles in section 43. There are no such further elaborations now in relation to those principles which are, as Senator Harradine says, important to the philosophy of family law as desired by the Parliament when it constructed this legislation. The principles are clear. Their applicability and the influence they have on the court exercising jurisdiction has been a matter of concern to Senator Harradine, even in relation to the Family Court. He has made that clear. Section 63 will apply to magistrates courts, which takes us back to section 62 (1) (a). Perhaps I can elaborate on the answer I gave to Senator Walters in relation to the assistance which a magistrate might find in making a decision about the custody of children. Section 62 (1) (a) makes it clear that either a court counsellor or a welfare officer may be requested to make such a report and that the magistrate may adjourn the proceedings until that report is made available. `Welfare officer' is defined in the Act as covering seven or eight categories of available persons. I am sure that a magistrate would at least have a welfare officer available within the jurisdiction to construct such a report if required, even if a court counsellor were not available. That would then enable the court to make a better decision than would be the case if that report were not available. So, in those ways, the interests of the children in the custody dispute can be taken properly into account by the magistrates court. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.45) —Is the Minister saying that a welfare officer follows the magistrates, that the magistrate has access to a welfare officer wherever he is? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.45) —No. I was taking the honourable senator's point that there may be occasions when access to a court counsellor geographically is not easy. But I cannot imagine almost any magistrate's jurisdiction in Australia where welfare officers are not available under State or regional departmental arrangement. In fact it is to those welfare officers that the magistrates can turn for these reports. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.46) —So it all becomes a pretty downgraded business. We have a magistrate sitting out at the back of Bourke who is not a Family Court judge, and we have him referring any problems to a welfare officer in the region who has not the qualifications of a counsellor at the Family Court, and we are meant to be giving the same sort of priority to the divorce case out in the bush as we are to a divorce case occurring in Sydney. Is that what the Minister is saying? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.46) —No, I am not. At present in fact the Family Court judge can also make use of a welfare officer. That is in the clause I was quoting from. So the Parliament already envisaged that that facility would be available to Family Court judges and therefore it is no downgrading to say that that might occur in relation to magistrates. But my real point is that magistrates deal with custody matters commonly and are experienced in them at the moment. I have no doubt that quite often welfare officers' reports would be available to them when dealing with custody disputes at the moment, either under the Family Law Act or in relation to custody and guardianship matters that arise under State legislation. So there is already experience within magistrates courts and access to this type of report to aid the court in its decision. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.47) —I heard what the Minister said about my concern about the application by the Family Court of the principles contained in sections 14, 43 and 63 of the legislation. I would have thought that it would have been of primary importance to the government of the day to ensure that the courts do apply those principles. Those principles indeed are to recognise the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage; the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; the need to protect the rights of children and promote their welfare; and the means of assisting the parties to a marriage to consider reconciliation or the improvement of their relationship to each other and to the children of the marriage. If, for an example, in a court of summary jurisdiction an application for dissolution of marriage can be made, what is the magistrate going to do about that application when it comes in? Does he just bang it with his rubber stamp or does he say, `We will get the parties to the marriage in and we will just have a talk to them and see what the situation is'? Is it going to be just a formality or is it not? This is a practical question that I am asking. This is the start of everything. At that time it may well be not too late for something to be done about it. Under those circumstances, are guidelines going to be provided to the courts of summary jurisdiction about the need for them to recommend to the parties to the marriage that they seek counselling for the purposes of considering the social, financial and other consequences of their proposed action, particularly the effect that it may have on the children? First of all, there should be guidelines. Second, there ought to be a regular audit undertaken by the Government. If it is not, I want to know why there is not an audit undertaken by the Government of the actions of the whole Family Court apparatus from the judges to the registrars to the counsellors to the lot-to everybody in the Family Court apparatus: are they observing the principles which are established, particularly in the three sections I referred to? I know from discussing with people who may otherwise have voted against this legislation when it was adopted in 1975 that the words contained in those principles were the words which influenced them to vote for the legislation. Of course they are only being used as words; they are just words and in many cases they are not being observed by the Family Court officers. I want to know whether any guidelines will be provided to the courts of summary jurisdiction and whether any audit will be done of what the Family Court structure is doing about implementing these provisions. I think it is important that the Minister give me an answer to those questions because we will not have an opportunity for this information to be sought in the near future. It may be another year before we are able to deal with this matter. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.52) —I have been listening with great interest and concern to the debate that has taken place about the resources available to magistrates in the exercising of this most important new jurisdiction which the Government wants to give them; namely, to pronounce a dissolution of marriage, albeit only in undefended cases. For the benefit of the Minister, who seemed to think that because magistrates deal with custody cases by consent in some circumstances and on some occasions they are quite qualified to deal with the granting of a dissolution of marriage, I state that where children under 18 years of age are involved, even though there is no dispute on custody matters, before pronouncing a degree of dissolution the court must be satisfied that-I quote from section 63 of the Act: (i) proper arrangements in all the circumstances have been made for the welfare of those children; or (ii) there are circumstances by reason of which the decree nisi should become absolute notwithstanding that the court is not satisfied that such arrangements have been made. That is a very important exercise of judgment which at present a judge of the court has to make in the interests of the child. It may well be that magistrates sometimes deal with custody cases by consent of the parties, but I have been advised that many magistrates find this a very difficult matter and a considerable burden. One of the real problems is that they do not have available in their court court counsellors in particular or, in most cases, as I understand it, welfare officers. What worries me about Senator Tate's answer is that he said that he cannot imagine that there would be a magistrate's court in Australia where there was not a welfare officer. Senator Tate —No. Senator DURACK —Is that not what the Minister said? Senator Tate —Where he would not have access to a welfare officer in the region. Senator DURACK —But where would the welfare officer be? We are talking about a magistrate sitting in Bourke or somewhere like that. There may be a regional officer somewhere in western New South Wales; I do not know, and the Minister does not know. The Minister is proposing this matter; I am not. I would expect the Minister to be able to answer these important questions. Senator Harradine —It is generally the local publican. Senator DURACK —Perhaps that is all the Minister thinks is required. I know that the Minister's attention is being engaged at the moment by another senator, but I would like him to listen to this because I am afraid that we are not getting much satisfaction from him. I do not want to deter Senator Haines from talking to the Minister, but I am putting to him that my attention has been drawn to a recent article in the Australian Family Lawyer headed `Observations as to Family Law Proceedings in Magistrates' Courts'. It is written by a Mr Presnell, SM, who I gather from the article is a Victorian magistrate. He certainly talks about the scene in Victoria, not in New South Wales or any other State. The general tenor of his article is the difficulties that magistrates have had in exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act and the great reluctance of many magistrates to exercise that jurisdiction in the limited form that they do at present. In his article he says: Few magistrates in this State- that is, Victoria- will willingly make final custody orders in contested matters, not necessarily because of lack of expertise or confidence but for the simple reason that no facilities for counselling or welfare reports are available to us. In all other aspects of magisterial work there is assistance available. I do not have the date of this publication; but it promotes the Bicentenary Family Law Conference to be held from 16 to 20 March this year, so it is pretty up to date. Here is Mr Presnell, a stipendiary magistrate in Victoria, saying that, certainly in his State, magistrates are unhappy about the jurisdiction dealing with the custody or welfare of children because no facilities for counselling or welfare reports are available to them. I would like to know what the Minister has to say about that. That article refers to Victoria, a smaller State. What is the situation in the back of Queensland or the back of New South Wales? In Western Australia, fortunately, this problem does not arise so much because the Family Court in Western Australia, which, for reasons on which everybody agrees, is the most efficient court in Australia, goes on circuit over the length and breadth of Western Australia. But, as to the other States, where the argument of convenience applies, I think it is up to the Minister to assure this chamber that these facilities will be readily available to magistrates-Mr Presnell has denied that they are readily available in Victoria-before this jurisdiction is granted to the courts; that magistrates will be given absolutely full assistance to exercise this major duty, even in pronouncing an undefended divorce where there are children under 18 years of age. That is not a jurisdiction that has ever been exercised lightly by judges in the history of Family Court work. This requirement on or duty of a judge has been a feature of family law since the enactment of the Matrimonial Causes Act in 1959. It was a central feature of that Act and it is still carried on in the Family Law Act in section 63, which I have quoted, which provides that the court may not, without being satisfied of certain matters, pronounce a decree of dissolution, whether or not it is by consent-even when the case is not defended, when there is no contest and the people are breaking their necks to get a divorce. That is the trouble. People are often breaking their necks to get a divorce and they slap together arrangements for their children which are totally inadequate. In the Family Court setting court counsellors can help people to make suitable arrangements. It is not just a matter of having a welfare officer whom the court can send out to provide a report about the state of the house or the living conditions of the children. It is not just a matter of a welfare report; it is a question, if the judge is not satisfied, of being able to make sure that the parties are given some expert help as to what is required of them to perform their duty to their children. That is a very great obligation upon the court which the courts exercising the jurisdiction have traditionally taken very seriously. It is up to the Minister to assure this chamber, before he asks this Parliament to pass a proposal to give magistrates courts the jurisdiction to exercise this very serious obligation and before this jurisdiction is given to any magistrates in any part of Australia, that magistrates, wherever they may be sitting-this is certainly not the case in Victoria, if Mr Presnell is to be believed-will have readily available to them, as will the parties, the facilities which are required for them to exercise that solemn duty imposed upon them by section 63. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.02) —As the Family Law Act is constructed, with the amendment which I have moved, not all courts of summary jurisdiction in a particular State will be able to exercise this power. It will be exercised only by those courts which are prescribed. As I understand it, that provision has been inserted at the request of the States because they recognise that not all courts of summary jurisdiction within their geography would be suitable or able to undertake the sorts of exercises of jurisdiction which are contemplated. To that extent, the States have already indicated their concern that only those courts which are well able to exercise the jurisdiction, with all the principles and ramifications which have been adverted to by Senator Harradine, Senator Durack and so on, should be able to discharge those obligations. The discussions that take place with the States as to which courts are to be prescribed ought to deal with the need for the provisions of sections 62 and 63 to be satisfied. I will give an understanding that, in discussions leading to the prescription by way of regulation of the courts of summary jurisdiction to exercise this jurisdiction, we will seek from the States a list of the courts which can, indeed, fulfil the obligations imposed upon them by the statute, particularly the sections which Senator Durack and Senator Harradine have emphasised this morning. If, when that list comes back, Senator Durack or Senator Harradine is unsatisfied that the courts of summary jurisdiction listed have the ability to discharge their obligations under, for example, section 62, he will, of course, move accordingly. That would be a remedial situation. I am undertaking to include in the necessary circumscribing of those courts of summary jurisdiction that might exercise this jurisdiction those very matters which the honourable senator properly raised. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.05) —Does that mean that there will not be any courts of summary jurisdiction in Victoria, where the magistrates have already said, as Senator Durack has just quoted, that they are very reluctant to undertake these cases? The supplementary explanatory memorandum on the Government's new amendments says that the prescribed courts will only be courts that have a full time magistrate. The Minister has not said that includes courts that have full time magistrates and magistrates who are not only willing to undertake this but who also agree that they have the qualifications and the backup facilities that we have just been told are not available, or which the magistrates in Victoria believe are not available, to them. I do not know how the Government is going to do what it is promising us in this chamber this morning, because its supplementary explanatory memorandum says that a resident magistrate is needed. The Minister has told me that he is going to get the qualifications of the magistrates from the various States before we finish this discussion today, and I am waiting on that. Senator Tate —I said I would hope to be able to. I am making every endeavour to. Senator WALTERS —If it is unable to be given to me before we finish discussing this particular section I hope we will be able to come back to it later, once the Minister has given me the qualifications. I put to the Minister again that as the Victorian magistrates have already said that they are unhappy about undertaking what the Government wants them to, because of a lack of facilities, is the Government going to be able to provide those facilities to their satisfaction or is it just going to leave Victoria out of those courts of summary jurisdiction? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.07) —I am not so conversant with the magistrate who apparently has written the article which Senator Durack quoted from as to be able to say whether in fact his view reflects that of all his fellow magistrates. Senator Durack —Are you saying he is not telling the truth? Senator TATE —No, I am not saying that. I am saying that I am not in a position to say whether his view is shared by all magistrates throughout the jurisdictions in Victoria. Senator Durack —No facilities are available. Senator TATE —I question whether it can be the case that welfare reports are not available to a magistrate in Victoria when dealing with a custody case. That seems to me to be unlikely, but I am not prepared to say that in the experience of that particular magistrate there may not have been occasions like that. But it seems to me that in the whole of Victoria, where the magistracy deals with custody and access matters quite regularly and commonly, there would be certain facilities available to them to enable them, in a case where they thought it appropriate, to get a report from a suitably qualified person as to the best way in which to deal with the custody arrangements. We have to emphasise that the States themselves will not enter into this process of making their magistrates courts available unless they themselves have found, in discussions with the magistrates, that it is going to be acceptable. I cannot imagine any State imposing on magistrates a regime which the whole body of magistrates is utterly opposed to. That seems to me to be improbable. I have indicated that, in the discussions that do take place with the States as to which of their courts of summary jurisdiction should be prescribed, it will be emphasised that amongst other considerations the question of the ability of the prescribed courts to undertake properly the obligations imposed on them, for example, by section 62, will be part of that discussion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.10) —I believe the Minister is saying that when the regulations come forward which detail what courts of summary jurisdiction are prescribed courts, they will be available for Senator Durack or myself, and indeed any other member of the Senate, to take remedial action on, presumably by seeking the disallowance of the regulations. That really is putting the onus of proof on us. I would not have a clue, apart from what has been said, whether they have the facilities available to exercise their jurisdiction properly. It is not my function to find that out. Surely it is the function of the Government to assure us that they do have the facilities. We heard Senator Durack read out a recent comment by a magistrate in Victoria, which indicates clearly that in that State they do not have the counselling facilities or the welfare facilities to deal properly with questions of custody, and this is a very important matter. I do not think anywhere in the debate-correct me if I am wrong-is there any indication by the Government of the attitude of each and every one of the States to this proposition. It may well be that the magistrates and the States do not want to have a bar of it, but let us get that information first. I insist that at this point in time it would be very useful-and this is the last word I am going to say about it-for the Minister to give an indication that there is somebody somewhere, doing some sort of audit of the Family Court apparatus and of all those jurisdictions that exercise the powers conferred on them by the legislation, to see whether they are applying the principles which are enunciated particularly in those three sections to which I previously referred. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.12) —The sort of audit that Senator Harradine speaks of is not undertaken in the sense of a review of all cases disposed of before the Family Court to see whether those particular very general principles outlined, for example, I think in section 14, have been adhered to. Those matters are of general social significance and would be the sorts of matters of review which this Parliament assesses, for example, when it deals with its review of the operation of the Family Law Act. It is not a matter which is undertaken by a dissection or audit of each case dealt with by the courts. That sort of audit would be more an assessment or an inference, if you like, to be drawn from the way in which the whole jurisdiction is exercised over a period of time. So I have to say that there is no audit undertaken of each case in relation to the application of those particular principles. But it is important that those principles be affirmed by the Parliament, as has been happening in this debate. I have given an undertaking that in the discussions that take place with the States those principles will be emphasised as ones which the courts of summary jurisdiction to be prescribed will need to adhere to. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.15) —Nowhere in the Bill, the explanatory memorandum or anywhere else, other than in the words that the Minister has been using, can I see the words `a magistrate'. The words `court of summary jurisdiction' are used everywhere. The explanatory memorandum states that a prescribed court of summary jurisdiction would be a full-time court. That is not stated in the legislation: the explanatory memorandum tells us that that is what the Government means by `a prescribed court'. Can the Minister assure me that somewhere in the legislation there is the word `magistrate', so that we do not end up with justices of the peace or other people presiding over these non-defended divorce cases? I cannot find it anywhere, except in the words that the Minister has been using. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.16) —I have been using the shorthand term `magistrate' to refer to those persons exercising jurisdiction within a court of summary jurisdiction of the kind described in the explanatory memorandum. That is all that I can say on that point. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.16) —Is the Minister saying that it does not have to be a magistrate, that a full-time justice of the peace could preside over non-contested divorce cases? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.17) —The sorts of courts that we are talking about are known as magistrates courts-the technical term is `court of summary jurisdiction'. This is where magistrates exercise jurisdiction in a regular way. It is a well-known expression. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.17) —The Minister is allowing justices of the peace the right to preside over non-defended divorce cases, to look at long term custody situations and all the situations we have been talking about today, to ensure that the children's arrangements are in the best interests of the children without-according to a Victorian magistrate who has written this in a journal-the facilities available to them for counselling and everything else that he believes necessary when dealing with custody cases. So a justice of the peace could deal with these cases. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.17) —I will give an undertaking that it is not to be the case that any of those prescribed courts of summary jurisdiction will be such that the jurisdiction will be exercised by justices of the peace. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.18) —The Minister should bear with me because that is really not good enough. I just picked the example of a justice of the peace, but there are so many other people who lack any qualifications who in some States presently preside over these courts of summary jurisdiction. That is why I have asked the Minister to supply the qualifications that the various States require of such people. I know that the Minister is trying to get that information for me. Will he tell me-it may well have to be after lunch-what qualifications he believes-- Senator Haines —It will actually be tomorrow. We won't be getting back to this after lunch. Senator WALTERS —Whenever we get back to it, will the Minister tell me, in regard to these people who will look after these cases in the various States that have courts of summary jurisdiction, what qualifications he deems necessary before they can look after the children's interests in these cases? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.19) —I have indicated that at the moment I am trying to fulfil Senator Walters's request to get the qualifications of magistrates in the various jurisdictions. She now asks a slightly different question. I will have to give that some consideration. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.20) —It looks as though this clause will have to be postponed as well in order to get answers before we finalise it. Could Senator Tate give us another undertaking, or at least consider my request. My request results from the form of the amendment which he has proposed. I raise this concern because Senator Haines, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, has indicated that they will support this amendment, which means that although we are opposed to the principle, obviously we will not succeed ultimately in obtaining our wish. Therefore, we have to give consideration to what could be the practical effect of the Minister's amendment becoming law, with the support of the Democrats. The result appears to be that clause 15 will amend section 39 of the Act, which states: . . . a matrimonial cause, not being proceedings for principal relief, may be instituted under this Act in a Court of summary jurisdiction . . . Incidentally, that is the technical description of these courts that we are talking about. The Government's amendment in clause 15 removes the words `not being proceedings for principal relief' which, for the layman, largely means pronouncing a divorce. After that amendment has passed, the general principle will be that a matrimonial cause-in other words, the application for a divorce-may be instituted in a court of summary jurisdiction. Subsequently, there is a limitation on that matter in relation to defended divorces. Another clause will prevent their dealing with defended divorces. Nevertheless, there is a general principle that courts of summary jurisdiction may deal with an undefended divorce. The Government's amendment which we are now considering limits that in this way, and in this way only. It states: The regulations may provide that proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage- that is, divorce- may not be instituted in, or transferred to, a court of summary jurisdiction other than a prescribed court. The Minister has indicated that the courts involved will be what the explanatory memorandum calls full-time courts. He has further given an undertaking to me and to the Committee, as a result of my request, that these will only be courts that are properly provided with resources such as court counsellors and welfare officers to enable the presiding officer of that court to exercise his jurisdiction under section 63. However, the form of the amendment requires regulations to be made which prescribe these desirable courts, as the Minister has amplified and undertaken. If they are not made, any court of summary jurisdiction, whether it is a full-time or part-time court, whether it is presided over by a magistrate, a justice of the peace or a police officer-apparently this happens in some remote courts in New South Wales; I am not sure about that, but I am told that that may be the case-will exercise this jurisdiction once this legislation comes into force. The only restriction on the exercise of that jurisdiction will be if the Government makes regulations. We cannot control the situation unless the Government makes regulations. We cannot do anything about it. If the Government does not make regulations but brings this legislation into force, this jurisdiction, which everybody, including even the Australian Democrats and the Government, agrees would be undesirable, may be exercised by any old court of summary jurisdiction presided over by anybody in any State who has the power to preside over such a court. I want the Minister to give a very solemn undertaking to this chamber that the regulations restricting the ambit of the proposed Act, once clause 15 is passed, will be made and that the Act will not be brought into effect until regulations are made and enforced-subject to this chamber, after scrutiny, limiting that jurisdiction along the lines that the Minister, as a result of a number of questions from the Opposition, the Democrats and Senator Harradine, indicated is the Government's policy. It is a very serious failing on the part of the Government to bring in an amendment in this form giving wide powers, which it does not even want exercised, in their full ambit, and then say, `Oh well, those powers will be cut down by regulations and there is nothing more to it'. The Government is asking this Parliament to take it on trust-I do not know why we should do that-by passing this legislation. The Government will then have complete power in its hands as to when regulations will be made or when they will be brought into force. It is no good Senator Tate jumping up and saying we can disallow regulations, because they will be regulations limiting a power and not regulations expanding a power. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.27) —I do give the undertaking that the jurisdiction will not be conferred on any courts of summary jurisdiction until the regulations setting out prescribed courts are themselves made. I do not know exactly how technically to arrange that. It may be that we would not proclaim the commencement of section 44a until the regulations are made. I am happy to give that undertaking to the chamber. I also say that we would not proclaim the amendment to section 39, either, until those regulations are in place. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.28) —I ask purely for guidance. The Minister is attempting to get for me the qualifications of the various officers of courts of summary jurisdiction in the various States. I have asked him whether he would look at those and come back to me on what he believes are the qualifications that should be required of those in the prescribed courts, and what facilities ought to be available. I understand that by holding up this clause for another quarter of an hour I could get that information, but I do not want to do that. So long as the Minister allows me to come back to this matter when he is able to give me information on the qualifications of magistrates presiding over courts of summary jurisdiction in the various States, I would be happy to let the clause go through. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.29) —I am grateful for that. It would be good if the clause could be put through. I am attempting as speedily as possible to get that list of magistrates' qualifications together for Senator Walters. Amendment agreed to. Question put: That clause 15 and clause 16, as amended, be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, A. R. Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Schacht, C. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W.Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C.Haines, J. Walsh, P. A.Jenkins, J. A. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Harradine, B. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Watson, W. R.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. G. Sheil, G.Devereux, J. R. Brownhill, D. G. C.Button, J. N. Hill, R. M.Evans, Gareth Tambling, G. E. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 17 agreed to. Clause 18 (Transfer of proceedings from court of summary jurisdiction in certain cases). Amendment (by Senator Tate) proposed: (7) Page 7, clause 18, lines 20 to 22, leave out ``the amount in relation to which the court has jurisdiction in an action for the recovery of a debt'', insert ``$20,000''. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.37) —The Minister is seeking to amend, in a very significant way, a provision in his own Bill which, as I have said before, the Government was very happy to have passed and, in fact, wanted passed, by the Senate last December. The Government opposed our suggestion that the matter ought to be considered by a Senate committee because of its inadequacies. Again, as we have seen in relation to the conferring of jurisdiction on magistrates courts to grant divorces, which we have just dealt with, the Government is now making another major amendment to its proposals as they were when the Bill was introduced and which the Government wanted to have passed as long ago as December. This matter deals with the jurisdiction to be exercised by magistrates in relation to property disputes; that is, that on the dissolution of marriage or, indeed, even before that, under the Family Law Act parties can claim a reorganisation of the property that they own jointly or separately. That is a very important feature of the jurisdiction of the Family Court under the Family Law Act. Some of the property disputes are of very great value indeed but the most important one, in most cases, is the family home. In the present Act the value of the property which can be within the jurisdiction of a court of summary jurisdiction is confined to $1,000. The Government's Bill, which it introduced and was happy to have passed last year-indeed, it was happy with it until 10 o'clock last Thursday morning when we first heard about this amendment-sought to give power to magistrates to make these sorts of important decisions in relation to property which was, and I quote from the Bill: of a value exceeding the amount in relation to which the court has jurisdiction in an action for the recovery of a debt; Magistrates courts around Australia have varying jurisdictions in relation to the recovery of debts. As a matter of fact, I do not understand why the amount in issue in relation to the recovery of a debt should bear any relationship to determining the extent of the value of property in issue. That is a completely different legal cause of action from the question of title to property or, in the case of the Family Law Act, the changing of title to property. It is a totally different concept from the recovery of debt. Yet that is what the Government was proposing here until 10 o'clock last Thursday morning when it brought on this Bill, the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill, for debate in the Senate. It had gone through the House of Representatives in October or early November last year. The Government wanted to put it through the Senate before Christmas last year in this ridiculous form-in this totally misconceived, misguided notion of what this jurisdiction is, equating the jurisdiction about deciding, after parties have separated or divorced, how property would be carved up between them, with the jurisdiction in debt recovery. In many cases it has to decide the title to the property as well, but further than that it is exercising this tremendous power actually to change the rights of ownership of property. Until now magistrates can only exercise that jurisdiction in respect of small items of property up to a value of $1,000. Since the Family Law Act was passed in 1975 there has been considerable inflation. So probably $1,000 is not really an appropriate figure today. I am advised that the appropriate figure would be something more like $3,500. As I have said, the Government was proposing to increase the amount whatever the court's jurisdiction was in relation to the recovery of a debt. In New South Wales the jurisdiction is presently $5,000, but that is apparently to be increased to $10,000, or, where there is no car involved, $20,000. In Victoria the jurisdiction is presently $20,000, although there is a Bill to raise it to $40,000. In Queensland it is limited to $5,000 at the moment with a proposal to increase it to $20,000. In South Australia the jurisdiction is $7,500, with proposals, which may be in force now, to increase it to $20,000. In Tasmania the jurisdiction is only $5,000. In Western Australia it is $10,000. In the Northern Territory it is $10,000 and in the Australian Capital Territory it is $10,000, with drafting instructions to increase it to $50,000. In my experience, with the time it takes to get anything drafted in the Australian Capital Territory it will be a long time before it gets to $50,000, but that is by the way. At the moment it is $10,000 in the Australian Capital Territory. That was a totally unsuitable proposal because not only is it a wrong concept to equate this question with the jurisdiction in debt recovery, but jurisdiction varies enormously around Australia, as this table to which I have just referred reveals. So at the last minute, up to just before 10 o'clock last Thursday morning, the Government realised that its proposition was quite at fault and that a uniform jurisdiction should be conferred in these very important matters of property disputes under the Family Law Act. Jurisdiction should be uniform around Australia and should be determined, not with reference to the jurisdiction of magistrates to deal with debt recovery but with reference to a sensible, uniform and appropriate figure. The Government has now come into this chamber and suggested that in lieu of that proposal-as I said it was its proposal until 10 o'clock last Thursday morning-and in lieu of the present figure of $1,000, there should be a figure of $20,000. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It relates to the Government's continuing assault on the rights of privacy of Australians, as most recently illustrated by its identity card proposal and the release of confidential information on doctors' charges by the Health Insurance Commission and the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to a report in today's Australian Financial Review to the effect that the Government's proposals for an upgraded tax file numbering system appear to have been deferred until after the New South Wales State election. I ask: Is it true that the Treasurer has had the report on options of the Australian Taxation Office since the beginning of the year? I further ask: Is the system ready to be implemented and, if so, when will new procedures begin? Senator WALSH —As to rights of privacy, we all know that the Liberal Party of Australia was firmly committed to the rights of privacy of taxpayers to dodge taxation and to keep private the fact that they had been dodging taxation-the rights of many prominent Liberals throughout Australia, including people who held office in the State branches of the Liberal Party, to evade taxation via bottom of the harbour schemes and to keep the fact that they had done so private. We know that those activities remained private until the McCabe-Lafranchi investigation exposed some of them and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union exposed a lot more. So, in noting the strength of the Liberal Party's commitment to the right to privacy, let us remember that that commitment is based primarily on the right of people in the Liberal Party to evade taxation and then to keep that fact private. Senator Chaney —Now for the question. Senator WALSH —All right, the question. We also know, of course, that the Liberal Party's natural constituency is a constituency of tax evaders. Therefore, the Liberal Party gets rather annoyed whenever any government wants to take effective action against tax evasion. That is why it scuttled the identity card proposal. That is why it is serving notice that it is preparing to scuttle any policy which will make tax evaders pay their tax, and it will hide behind the spurious veil of rights to privacy. Senator Chaney referred to a report which the Treasurer has allegedly received. I do not know whether the Treasurer has received such a report or whether such a report exists. I will take that matter up with the Treasurer and ascertain whether he has anything to say on it. Of course, it is no secret that the Government took a decision last year to consider using a tax file numbering system as a means of reducing-I emphasise the word `reducing'-the amount of tax evasion. Senator Robert Ray —Supported by the Liberal members on the select committee, too. Senator WALSH —Yes, supported by the Liberal members on the select committee. I remind Senator Ray that that is where they are now. When the screws really come down on them from the tax evaders who really pull the strings in the Liberal Party, they will probably go to water as they did on the identity card proposal. Senator Puplick —Who went to water on that? Senator WALSH —Who went to water on that? The Liberal members who sat on that committee and supported that proposal went to water. John Howard went to water. Peacock went to water. You all went to water on it. The tax evader puppet masters who pull the strings to activate Senator Puplick and all the rest of them started pulling the strings and you all went to water. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I ask the Minister to withdraw those last remarks. They are clearly objectionable and unparliamentary. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —If Senator Chaney finds those remarks offensive, knowing what a shrinking violet and sensitive soul he is, I withdraw them. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I do not wish for a withdrawal on that basis; I only wish for a withdrawal on the basis that the remarks are unparliamentary. I ask you to direct the Minister to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. It remains a fully documented fact that of the 15 members, I think, of the Liberal Party finance committee in Western Australia, no fewer than six were ultimately named, exposed, in either the McCabe-Lafranchi report or the Costigan report as having sunk companies to the bottom of the harbour, just as it remains a fact that a report recommending a prosecution in one case languished for five years in the bottom of the then Attorney-General's drawer. That gives us irrefutable evidence of the sorts of people who are in influential positions in the Liberal Party. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark. It is clearly inaccurate and it is a reflection on a member of Parliament. It should be withdrawn. It is wrong in fact and should be withdrawn. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I wish to ask you or perhaps Senator Chaney a question. None of the members of the Liberal Party finance committee are members of Parliament. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think the reference to the Attorney-General is a personal reflection on a member and I ask that it be withdrawn. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, although for the record I point out that it was a former Attorney-General, not the present Attorney-General. The sorts of people who pull the strings in the Liberal Party are the people who sat on the Liberal Party finance committee in Western Australia at the time they were sinking their companies to the bottom of the harbour to evade taxation. Of course, the ultimate objective of all this so-called privacy is to protect those tax evaders. As to the last part of Senator Chaney's question, I simply repeat that I do not know whether the alleged report is in existence or whether it has been received by the Treasurer. I will take that matter up with the Treasurer. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's passion on this matter. In light of that passion, I ask: Will the Minister give a commitment to tell the Senate, following his inquiry of the Treasurer, what the Government's proposals are in this area so that they can be subjected to proper scrutiny by the people of Australia, or will he continue to hide away these proposals so that they are not accessible to the people of Australia before the New South Wales State election? Senator WALSH —It is not my practice to tell Senator Chaney, the Senate or people in general what propositions are before Cabinet, even when there are propositions before Cabinet. Other than the very general proposal to investigate this system, which has been public for about six months, in this case there is no specific proposal to my knowledge. If there were, I would not tell Senator Chaney about it until it had been considered by Cabinet. Even then he probably would not hear about it from me; he would hear about it from the Treasurer, whose responsibility it is to make such announcements. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. Do the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act provide an accurate way of investigating the sources of donations to political parties? In light of Sergeant Metcalfe's allegations made before the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct that illegal casino money had been passed to the National Party, can the Government be satisfied that none of this money has been used by the National Party in Federal election campaigns? Do Sergeant Metcalfe's allegations provide the basis for further investigation by the Australian Electoral Commission or the Australian Federal Police? Senator ROBERT RAY —My attention, and I suppose that of everyone, has been drawn to these allegations. However, I note at this stage that they are allegations and, as of yet, there is no evidence to corroborate those allegations. I note also, if I have interpreted the reports correctly, that the main series of events appear to have occurred in 1982 and 1983. However, I must say that the Press reports have been sketchy on that aspect. If that was the case, there were no disclosure laws in place at that time at a Federal level. Further to that point, I imagine that if money was received, no matter from whom-be it illegal casinos or anyone else-the matter would be covered by Commonwealth law only if that money was spent in an election campaign and if the amount involved was more than $1,000. In its submission in 1983 to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, the National Party said-I am only summarising, but this was the effect-that no one could be bought for less than $10,000 or $20,000. Therefore, one would presume that any money received was more than $1,000. I make the point that in this case as in any other case one cannot prejudge these matters. In fact, one would need some evidence to link donations to the Queensland National Party being used in national election campaigns before any action would be taken. As I understand it, it is not the practice of the Australian Electoral Commission to refer to the Federal Police rumour, innuendo or uncorroborated allegations. If such evidence does come to light, the normal procedures will be followed-that is, the Electoral Commission, if it is satisfied that the evidence warrants it, would refer it to the Australian Federal Police. In turn, the Australian Federal Police report would go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Again, as I have stressed before, this is not a matter for any political interference. There will always be allegations about money flowing into political parties, be it illegal money or otherwise. But I think everyone would agree that some corroborating evidence would be needed, because politicians and others are very vulnerable to those sorts of allegations. Many public inquiries have been held over the years and I understand the legal profession is starting to wonder about the value of hearsay evidence. In this case I cannot judge. I have read all the reports, and a lot of it may ring true to me, but it is not up to me to judge these particular matters. So, in answer to Senator Black's question, unless there is some evidence linking donations to the National Party that were then expended in a national campaign, I would not imagine the Electoral Commission would take the matter any further. Senator PUPLICK —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the revelation that Health Insurance Commission data was improperly released by Dr Blewett to a Government backbencher? Has the Health Insurance Commission under Dr Blewett's control previously been guilty of releasing personal data on Australian doctors-for example, during the 1985 New South Wales doctors dispute? Was the Health Insurance Commission under Dr Blewett responsible for the leakage of data about the personal affairs of people to the Victorian police, as shown in the McGoldrick case, and did the Senate cause the health insurance regulations promulgated by Dr Blewett to be disallowed in April 1986 because of their threat to personal privacy? As yesterday's fiasco and the admitted misleading of the Parliament constitutes at least the third time that Dr Blewett has been responsible for serious attacks on the privacy of individual Australians, can the Minister say why Dr Blewett should not be totally condemned as the greatest single threat to personal privacy in Australia? Senator COOK —I wondered before I came into Question Time today whether anyone on the Opposition side would be silly enough to raise the question of the allegations that have been made against Dr Blewett. I am not surprised that Senator Puplick won the prize because he has come up with a tired old set of cliches to which I will reply in a minute. Since he has raised the question of the allegations made against Dr Blewett, let me remind him that the issue arose because the Chairman of the price watch body, Mr George Gear, had played a role in exposing doctors who charge well above the recommended fee. For example, I understand that Mr Gear has been able to verify that last year Australians paid over $160m more than the recommended fee for medical services in Australia. In New South Wales they paid over $56m above the recommended fee last year and in Victoria $48m. In the Australian Capital Territory $3.3m more was paid by health consumers of medical services. Those facts were the facts sought and publicised, and in terms of those facts I think that is a major intrusion on the rights of ordinary Australians and they should be publicised. As to the questions that Senator Puplick has asked me about Dr Blewett and the allegations, I wish to table the statement made in the House or Representatives last night by Dr Blewett and the supporting papers associated with that statement. On the basis of the tabling of those documents I have nothing further to add. Senator GIETZELT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I refer to the report by the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association issued in November last year which contained allegations of rip-offs in the consumer credit insurance area and I ask the Minister: What is the Government's response to that report? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Gietzelt raises an issue which is of major concern to the Government and, as he notes, it was the subject of a report released last November. When the report was released the Government welcomed it because we thought it provided very timely information on a particular problem facing consumers. As my predecessor, Mr Staples, said at the time, the report presented a case which warranted a substantial and detailed response by industry. It is disappointing, and the Government feels disappointed, that since the report was released there has been no such response from the private sector involved. Those involved in the consumer credit insurance sector seem to have seen the report as the end of the debate whereas, as the Government said at the time, we see the report as the starting point of the debate-a starting point aimed at promoting debate and discussion. It has been the Government's position that the report, despite this response, cannot be ignored and that the only way we can overcome the problems facing consumers, and consequently facing industry, is through a consultative approach involving the three sectors involved-consumer groups, industry and the Government. Consequently, the Government has taken a line of action which has been geared towards facilitating this sort of consultative process. Late last November the Treasurer announced the setting up of a working group to review the provision of consumer financial services, and included within the ambit of the operation of that group is consumer credit insurance. As I said, I am disappointed that the sector has not taken up the challenge and has not responded with a constructive attitude to the issue, but the Government sees this working party as a very viable and appropriate mechanism through which the private sector can express its views, have them considered by government and, consequently, involve itself in the Government decision-making process. I hope the private sector will take this up and towards the end of this year we may get a more constructive approach to a specific problem facing consumers. Senator POWELL —I ask whether the Minister for Transport and Communications has noted that in the 1986-87 annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation tabled last week attention is drawn to the fact that as a result of the statutory requirement for a capital city network to undertake continuous broadcasting of Parliament, and I quote from the report: Metropolitan radio has long suffered disruptions to programs and a significant drop in audience whenever Parliament is on the air. Is the Minister aware that the recent move of parliamentary broadcasts to Radio National is causing disruption to programming on that station and resulting in considerable public outcry? Will the Minister move, therefore, to provide the Australian Broadcasting Corporation with a separate broadcast frequency for parliamentary broadcasts to ensure that public pressure such as that exerted by the Canberra Times is its Sunday editorial and that being exerted by the ABC itself will not lead to the removal of parliamentary broadcasts altogether and the consequent denial to the Australian voting public of the Minister's dulcet tones? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am personally very concerned at the assault on the integrity of Radio National that is involved in its broadcasting hours now being comprehensively cluttered by the broadcasting of Parliament throughout the parliamentary sitting periods. It has, perfectly understandably, generated a storm of protest from those listeners around the country who are denied intellectual nourishment as a result of this change of programming. Senator MacGibbon —They do not get much from listening to you, Gareth. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not except myself from that description, Senator MacGibbon. I think there is a very strong case for rearranging broadcasting matters in such a way that Parliament, if it is to continue to be broadcast at all, does have a separate frequency and does not undermine the effectiveness of what is one of the real remaining jewels in the ABC's crown-that is, the talk broadcasting on Radio National. One of the papers that I will be releasing, I hope at the end of this week, deals very precisely with the question of parliamentary broadcasting and makes some estimate of the costs that would be involved in establishing a separate network, in effect, at least around the eight major cities that take parliamentary broadcasting at the moment. It is a very expensive business and, on the face of it, it is not going to be an easily realisable aspiration unless we can think, perhaps in some more creative way, about opening up existing frequencies-existing channels-perhaps in the context of AM-FM conversion so as to enable this to take place. I indicate for Senator Powell that these matters are very squarely on my agenda because I am very concerned to preserve what is good and effective and contributing to the quality of national life about the ABC. I am afraid that I am very much among the ranks of those who believe that parliamentary broadcasts do none of those things. Senator DEVLIN —Can the Minister for Resources advise the Senate whether there have been any further developments in clarifying the final management plan for the Douglas-Apsley forest? Has the Minister requested further information from the Tasmanian Government on the possible combination of the fragmented areas of the forest preservation zone? Senator COOK —There are some further developments. They take the form of my having written to Ray Groom, the Tasmanian Minister for Forests. The letter should have gone yesterday or the day before. On the basis of the forest management plan he has submitted I have sought further clarification of the items in that plan for the final management of the Douglas-Apsleys. The Commonwealth's concerns are that we obtain some more information and consider that information before the management plan is endorsed. The sorts of issues I have raised in seeking further information are matters concerning the possible combination of fragmented areas of the forest preservation zone, ways of limiting any use of clear-felling and cable-logging techniques, the protection of fish stocks within the water catchments in the forest, planning for roads and protection for the two local water catchments. Senator Walters —Do you know the Douglas-Apsleys? Senator COOK —These are matters that, in terms of the plan submitted, are worthy of further comment and examination before the question of whether the plan be endorsed is considered. I have written seeking that further clarification and information in the proper and due discharge of my responsibility. As soon as the Senate rises from its considerations this week, on Friday I am going to Tasmania. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator COOK —I think it is a great State that will soon see a Labor government. I am going to Tasmania to have a look at the Douglas-Apsley area and part of the forest and to have some discussions with forest industry representatives, conservationists and the trade union movement. I also hope to see Ray Groom himself and/or his officers. My purpose in going to Tasmania at this stage is to look and learn. It is certainly not to teach or pontificate. It is to examine and then come back and consider what I should do in terms of the forest management plan. Senator STONE —I refer the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Representatives yesterday that the National Crime Authority (NCA) was seeking further information on illegally gathered tape recordings involving Sir Peter Abeles. I remind the Minister that one of the matters said to be raised in the tapes is an alleged instruction by Sir Peter Abeles to an employee to transfer large amounts of currency out of Australia at short notice. In view of the gravity of these allegations, and without in any way supporting them, can the Minister tell the Senate whether Sir Peter Abeles will stand down from his position as a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia until the results of the NCA inquiries are known? Has the Treasurer had any communication with the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Bob Johnston, on this matter? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether this question would have been better directed to Senator Tate, who might know something about the allegations, which I do not. Not knowing anything about the allegations, it is difficult, to say the least, for me to give any sort of an answer other than that I will refer the matter to the Treasurer, and I suggest that, if Senator Tate has anything to add to that, he might do so. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to report to the Senate on the result of his inquiries with the Treasurer and, in particular, on the point of the question which he did not respond to-and I would not necessarily expect him to know the answer without reference-as to whether the Treasurer has had any communication with the Governor of the Reserve Bank on this matter. Senator WALSH —If the Treasurer cares to make any statement or response available to me on this matter I am quite willing to provide it to the Senate. Senator BEAHAN —Did the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer see an article entitled `Australia's Tax Rape: We're among world's hardest hit' by David Haselhurst in the Bulletin of 5 January 1988? Does the article provide an accurate presentation of the relative levels of taxation in Australia and comparable countries? Does the article provide a valid justification for the reform of taxes on personal income in Australia? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article. Indeed, I looked at it with some care, which will become apparent later. I was asked whether it presented an accurate picture of tax relativities between Australia and other countries. The answer to that is that it most certainly does not. The heading of the article, for example, was `Australia's Tax Rape'. The substance of it was compatible with that sort of shrieking, tabloid newspaper headline. It contained a number of factual errors and misconceptions. It was the sort of article and the sort of headline one would expect to see on the front page of the tabloids and not in any publication that has some pretensions to being an intellectual publication. The article was purported to be based on a publication by Duesburys, entitled `Personal Taxes around the World', but, as I said before, very seriously misrepresented the factual information and/or misinterpreted it. Let me cite a couple of examples. At no stage did Duesburys claim that in Australia capital gains `are taxed at a flat rate of 49 per cent', as Mr Haselhurst asserted it did. At no stage did Duesburys attempt to misrepresent Australia's capital gains tax as an inheritance tax. On the contrary, Duesburys' booklet allows the reader to see that the capital gains taxes in countries such as the United States of America can be much heavier than in Australia, depending on how long the asset is held, the rate of inflation and the rate at which the nominal value of the asset increases. What could have been a misconception or misinterpretation instead of a misrepresentation, which the earlier one was, was the claim by Mr Haselhurst that State income taxes, which apply in all but about six or seven United States States, are deductible against Federal taxation and that they therefore represent no additional tax. The conceptual error here is that, whilst it is true that a State income tax at a rate of, say, 10 per cent is deductible from the Federal income tax base in the United States, it is not deducted from the Federal income tax liability. Indeed, if the State tax was, say, 10 per cent, deductible against a Federal tax rate of 29 per cent-and these figures are illustrative only-the overall tax rate is 32 per cent, and not 25 per cent, as Mr Haselhurst suggested. Finally, Mr Haselhurst juxtaposes in the article the 1987 social security tax rate for employees alongside the 1988 income tax rate scale. In other words, he fails to compare like with like and does not mention that in 1988 America's self-employed will pay social security tax of just over 13 per cent on their incomes in addition to State and Federal income tax. I have attempted to have these conceptual and factual errors corrected in that publication by writing a letter to the editor. Unfortunately, I failed to do so. I received a response from the editor which said that he has referred my letter to Mr Haselhurst and he will discuss the points and make use of a table attached to my letter showing that Australia ranks fourteenth or fifteenth, I think it is, on total income tax and not very far away on direct income taxes on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development scale when Mr Haselhurst returns to the subject in a forthcoming issue. I regard that as a very much less than satisfactory response. Any publication which has some intellectual pretensions-which I understand the Bulletin has-and which publishes an article so riddled with factual and conceptual errors and misrepresentation, as that article was, at least has an obligation to publish a letter which corrects some of the factual errors, misrepresentations and misinterpretations. Senator WATSON — My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate deny allegations that the proposed religious segment of the opening ceremony for the new Parliament House will consist of a meditative prayer offered to a non-defined being and confirm that leaders of the major Christian and Jewish churches will be invited to participate in the opening ceremony? Will the Minister assure the Senate that Judaeo-Christian prayers will be offered at the opening ceremony in May? Senator Puplick —Take advice from a higher authority. Senator BUTTON —Senator Puplick has asked me to take advice from a higher authority. If I might say so, in all modesty, I always do. I will seek advice about that from the Prime Minister and give the honourable senator an answer as quickly as possible. Senator SCHACHT —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. What is the Government's attitude to logging in national parks? Is the Minister satisfied that State governments are fulfilling obligations regarding proper management of national parks? I also ask the Minister whether it is necessary for some people professing a care for the environment to conduct what they call `secret spy missions' to take so-called sensational television film of logging in Kosciusko National Park? Senator Puplick —Ask Gareth about spy flights. Senator RICHARDSON —To answer the second question first, I do not need to ask Senator Evans. Indeed, all I need to say is that rather than spend money on spy flights and expensive helicopters, Senator Puplick and Mr Moore from New South Wales, who expressed interest in this issue yesterday, could have spent $10-a bit cheaper than the cost of a helicopter-and for that they could have got an environmental impact statement (EIS) on logging in the Kosciusko National Park at the Jounama pine plantation. By the way, they could have spent that $10 at any time in the last five years. The EIS on the logging in Kosciusko National Park came down in April 1983 and logging of that pine plantation commenced in 1984. I would have thought that shows just what a farce this issue was. Senator Puplick once again got it embarrassingly wrong and I intend to go through some of his embarrassment in the next few moments. He and his so-called green colleague, Mr Moore in New South Wales, are so ignorant of the environment for which they are supposed to speak that the only time they have stood up to try to save trees, they have wanted to save the wrong trees. We are not speaking here of native species; we are speaking of pine forests that have been doing damage to the national park. Had they spent that $10 they could have found that out. I would hate to think that Senator Puplick is really the person to green up the Liberal Party of Australia. Whatever he and Mr Moore have in the watering can it will need to be pretty special to green up Senator MacGibbon, Senator Walters and a few others. Yesterday-- Senator MacGibbon —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I would not have raised this except that I was provoked but under standing order 99 it is not possible for any Minister to answer a question which asks for a statement of policy, and that was Senator Schacht's question. The PRESIDENT —If all of standing order 99 were strictly applied in Question Time there would be no Question Time at all. I think the question is in order and I will allow the Minister to continue. Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr President. Yesterday Senator Puplick referred to this logging as `environmental vandalism' and `devastatingly destructive clear felling'. As I said, the logging has been conducted since 1984 and indeed half of the $1.4m in royalties will be given back to the National Parks and Wildlife Service to spend in regenerating native species in the area. The pine plantation was damaging limestone cave formations and had caused 20,000 wild seedlings to grow as far as 20 kilometres away. Once again Senator Puplick and Mr Moore have proved themselves the enemies of the natural environment. It is very strange, Mr President, that they are screaming about logging of national parks when not only the Liberal Party but also in particular the National Party of Australia has been hell-bent on logging national parks all over Australia. Indeed, I shall quote Wal Murray, the New South Wales National Party Leader. He said, `There is no way the National Party would agree to the locking up of essential timber resources inside national park boundaries'. Senator Puplick yesterday referred to Australian Labor Party (ALP) policy. He asked whether I was concerned that it was being breached on this occasion and I said no, because we were not logging any natural species. ALP policy refers only to nature conservation. Pine trees clearly are not natural and conserving them can never amount to nature conservation. Indeed, all this shows that there is a clear choice in New South Wales on environmental attitudes; that is, a clear choice between having 80,000 hectares of national park at Eden and saving the natural forest under an Unsworth Government or the alternative under the Liberals of ravaging them and raping them. Tim Moore also said in the Sydney Morning Herald today: The Liberal Party isn't- I repeat `is not'- concerned about the environmental merits of what's taking place in the Mt Kosciusko National Park. There is the crunch: he is as ignorant as Senator Puplick of what environmental impacts may or may not be. Conservationists tend to disagree, to say the least. Senator Puplick —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Is it contrary to Standing Orders for Senator Richardson to quote only part of Mr Moore's statement or is it simply a matter of blatant dishonesty? The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I have no power as to how a Minister will answer a question. Senator RICHARDSON —When it comes to blatant dishonesty-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, with respect, you do have some powers as to how Ministers answer questions and the Standing Orders do prohibit Ministers from debating questions. Last Friday, Senator Richardson, in my view, grossly abused Question Time with a very lengthy reply. Quite clearly, he has come in here not to give information to the Senate but to engage in a debate on this subject. I would ask you to listen carefully to his answer and to ensure that the Standing Orders are enforced. The PRESIDENT —Yes, I ask the Minister not to debate the issue. Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr President; I certainly would not. In trying to conclude, in what we have seen over the last two days, and in what Senator Puplick spoke about in Question Time yesterday, I have been asked whether I am guilty of blatant dishonesty. I would have thought that the blatant dishonesty came about in the announcement of Tim Moore yesterday and in Senator Puplick's question of yesterday. Indeed, one conservation group yesterday said that Mr Moore had gone bananas and another said that his credibility had been destroyed. In one release yesterday it was stated, `No amount of filibustering'-by the Liberals-`on this non-issue will divert attention from their intention to permit the clear felling of the proposed national parks in the south-east of the State'. That is what this is all about: it is a question of whether we want to save natural forests or not. The Opposition does not, we do and we will make sure that those forests are saved. Senator Stone —You hypocrite. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Stone to withdraw that comment. Senator Stone —I withdraw that comment, Mr President. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. In Estimates committee hearings on 22 October 1987 the Minister stated that eight consultancy reports were being commissioned by the Government to examine the impact of World Heritage listing in north Queensland. I note that, in a Press statement reported in the Courier-Mail on 23 January, a spokesman for the Minister indicated that no reports were available and that the reports would not be finalised by February. Can the Minister advise whether he has now received any of these reports? Senator RICHARDSON —I think most of those consultants' reports have been received. They are under consideration by the Government. When we have considered them, as I have already indicated, I think in response to a question from Senator Durack last year, although I cannot recall the date, all those reports will be made public. Nothing will be swept under the carpet. It will all be there before the honourable senator's eyes. The difficulty will be whether or not he can see it or read it. Senator BOSWELL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Government paying $300,000 of taxpayers' money for those consultancy reports, when will the Minister table them so that the Senate can make a judgment on the World Heritage listing and its pros and cons? Senator RICHARDSON —As soon as the Government has considered them. Senator BURNS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Government given consideration to the role of State governments in implementing the program of micro-economic reform which has been foreshadowed by the Prime Minister? Do areas of administration which are currently the responsibility of the States possess an equivalent potential to achieve increases in efficiency, productivity and, therefore, national competitiveness to those areas of administration which are the responsibility of the Commonwealth? In what ways can State governments such as Queensland contribute to the process of micro-economic reform? Senator WALSH —In regard to the first part of the question, the Government has given some consideration-I think it would be described as superficial or, rather, limited consideration at this stage-to what State governments may do in the area of micro-economic reform. My expectation is that there would be considerable potential for enhanced efficiency and productivity in that area. According to a document that I have received-an attachment to a Queensland Government Cabinet submission-there is enormous scope for such reform, productivity enhancement and efficiency improvement in Queensland. The document to which I refer could be described as a catalogue of bureaucratic inefficiency and duplication. It admits that in Queensland there is widespread duplication of functions as well as unnecessary functions. It exposes serious duplication in the data area, in land information systems and payroll systems and in professional and technical services such as laboratory functions and surveying. Support services such as motor vehicle fleets, printing, computing, photographic services and data collection are also heavily duplicated. It also makes the point that there is a variety of checking and inspection functions which are unnecessary. The document does not specifically refer to the Bread Marketing Act of Queensland, which was passed to ensure that some National Party bakers were protected from competition from other bakeries-the sort of policy which is entirely consistent with free enterprise as it was practised in Queensland, is practised in Queensland and is endorsed by Senator Stone. Let it be noted for the record that that perverted version of free enterprise, which has flourished in Queensland for the past 30 years, is endorsed by Senator Stone. The document also refers to the gross inefficiency of a number of hospital and local fire brigade boards. I do not expect that too much will be done about that because they are probably all stacked full of National Party apparatchiks. There is, however, most interestingly, a proposal to privatise electricity supply. There would be a huge potential, I would expect, not necessarily in privatising but in delivering electricity in Queensland more efficiently than it has been and is being delivered. The reason for that is that there are literally thousands of kilometres of Queensland Electricity Commission mains throughout western and north-western Queensland delivering power to sprawling National Party farms at enormous losses-losses which are carried at present by overcharging consumers on the coast and in the south-east. That is quite different from a telecommunications service, where it is essential, because of the nature of the service, to be plugged into a national grid. Electricity can be generated almost anywhere, and the correct choice, of course, should be the lowest cost choice. But several decades of pork-barrelling by the National Party machine in Queensland in doing precisely that sort of thing-this is the political machine that Senator Stone identifies himself with and endorses-has lumbered the Queensland Electricity Commission with enormous capital costs. It supplies probably the highest priced or most costly electricity anywhere in Australia. Whilst it is a great pity-indeed, a tragedy-that that was done, it cannot really be unravelled immediately. Therefore, privatisation would not solve that problem. Indeed, it cannot be solved at this stage. But, if the system were to be privatised, I expect that it would be necessary to have a very substantial supplement in the Queensland Budget in order to carry the losses in that most cost-inefficient electricity delivery system in Australia, which are presently being carried by the extortion of customers in the south-east and on the coast. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Minister for Administrative Services. How much money was spent on finding a departmental logo for the Department of Administrative Services? Is it a fact that all entries in the competition among officers of the Department were rejected? Senator ROBERT RAY —The answer to the first part of the question is $7,560. The answer to the second part of the question is yes. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. What is the Government doing to ensure that the regional impact of the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) restructuring plan will not lead to negative impacts on women and men in regional centres which rely on these industries? Senator REYNOLDS —The Government is well aware of the significance of the textile, clothing and footwear industries in a number of regional centres in Victoria and in other States. The Government is equally committed to improving the international competitiveness of our TCF industries, including promoting positive restructuring in the economy, and to ensuring that, in pursuing these objectives, particular sections of our community, particularly women and men in regional centres, are not required to bear any disproportionate burden as a result of this restructuring. To achieve these dual objectives, the Government has made provision for the impact of TCF restructuring on regional centres to be monitored. Senator Button announced this in his statement to Parliament in June last year. He also stated at that time that, if adverse effects became apparent in regional centres, the Government would develop positive adjustment strategies for the affected centres. Senator Button will be introducing later this week a Bill to establish the TCF Development Authority and will, I am sure, speak about these aspects of the work of the proposed Authority. I am pleased to be able to advise that initial indications from some of the larger companies with operations in country and provincial cities are that new investment rather than concentration is anticipated as a result of the Government's plan for the industry. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I refer the Minister to a booklet entitled Privatisation-The Consumer Perspective, published at taxpayers' expense by the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council. Is the Minister aware that the paper begins by claiming to be an attempt to examine objectively the issues involved, and that it then proceeds to quote a litany of anti-privatisation crusaders, such as Professor Ted Wheelwright, Hugh Stretton, New South Wales Minister for Housing Frank Walker and even John Langmore, who is cited as the sole authority for the proposition that United States of America and United Kingdom studies have shown that there is nothing intrinsically superior about performance under private ownership? Does the Minister agree that this tendentious and intellectually dishonest political pamphlet does nothing to advance the cause of rational debate about competition and efficiency in the public sector, let alone provide advice on matters of national consumer interest? Will the Minister investigate and report to the Senate on the circumstances in which the Council chose to focus on the issue of privatisation and by whom the draft document was prepared? Will the Minister invite the Chairman of the Council, Mr Justice Paul Stein, to resign as Chairman in order that the traditionally high standards of integrity attached to judicial office are not further compromised by another unedifying descent into the political arena? Senator BOLKUS —I was wondering what Senator Alston was doing over the break. He has obviously been overseas gathering a certain degree of non-objectivity. It is interesting that when those on the other side approach an issue they disagree with, it immediately becomes tendentious and intellectual dishonesty. That is the claim Senator Alston is making about this publication. I tend to disagree with Senator Alston, and I ask him, in the spirit of democracy and in the spirit of the open debate that the Government is part of in terms of the privatisation issue, to look at this booklet with non-blinkered eyes and in the spirit of embracing all sorts of arguments from all parts of the political spectrum, as this booklet does. I have not had a close look at the booklet. Senator Vanstone —Oh, come on! You spoke at Flinders University on privatisation. You know all about it. Senator BOLKUS —Senator Vanstone has learned all her rhetoric in the back streets of Adelaide and she is trying to bring it into the Senate. She should calm down for a moment. I was saying that I have not had a close look at the booklet but I have had a sufficiently close enough look at it to know that it encompasses more than what Senator Alston is projecting to the Senate. I think Senator Alston's request that I ask Justice Stein to resign is totally out of order. It is one that I will not entertain, and I am sure Senator Alston does not expect me to entertain it. In closing I say that this booklet produced by the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council is one part of the debate that is going on in the Australian community at the moment. The Government has already indicated that it welcomes comment from the whole spectrum of society. In this context I have noticed that Senator Alston has made some contribution to the debate over recent months. I put it to him that contrary to the allegation that he makes about the booklet being tendentious and intellectually dishonest, he should look at some of the statements he has made and assess them on that criterion. Senator ALSTON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister's supposedly close look at the document disclose that there were about 34 footnotes, and that the vast bulk of those were vehemently anti-privatisation? Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a plethora of literature these days that does advance the cause of privatisation, even on an objective basis, and that absolutely none of that was referred to, let alone properly considered, in that political pamphlet. Senator BOLKUS —I should stress the point that there are obviously implications for consumer interests and this portfolio when one looks at privatisation and at the principle of user pays. Members of the Opposition, who may not be closer to Senator Alston, have been making this point in recent debate. Let me also say to Senator Alston that I have more to do with my time than to read footnotes of booklets. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Will the Minister please describe to the Senate the changes planned in Australia's representation at United Nations (UN) forums on peace and disarmament and why these changes are considered appropriate? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Butler has not got the sack-that is what Senator Walsh was suggesting was the import of the question-nor could he conceivably deserve it, given the magnificence of the effort that he has put into the conduct of Australia's disarmament interests in Geneva over a considerable period of time. There is a disposition on the part of the Australia Government to amalgamate, within the Geneva diplomatic environment, the three posts, I think, that have previously been there relating to UN matters generally, trade related UN matters and the disarmament issue in such a way as to generate some particular savings. That is the subject of active consideration by the Government at the moment. But I am unable to advise Senator Giles until Mr Hayden returns, as he will next week, what the precise timetable will be for the implementation of any new arrangement and precisely who will be doing what. But all should be revealed in due course. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. First, is the report by Captain W. Owen in the December Defence 2000 publication correct in relation to the submarine program? Secondly, was it not a mandatory requirement in the ship characteristics document issued by the Royal Australian Navy that there be a soft fresh-water cooling system with a heat exchanger for the main generator? Thirdly, is it a fact that the design proposed by Kockums has a hard system with all its inherent dangers, the same design flaw which led to the loss of USS Thresher with all hands some years ago? Fourthly, has this fundamental flaw in the design been corrected at no cost to the Australian taxpayer? Senator ROBERT RAY —The honourable senator would understand that for someone who has got such a great technical grasp of these matters I find it very difficult to explain it to a layman such as Senator MacGibbon. Therefore, I will need time to ponder that and I will give him an answer in due course. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Could I have an assurance that `in due course' means 24 hours at the outside? Senator ROBERT RAY —I will try. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I draw the Minister's attention to the statement in the Government's higher education Green Paper that the desired expansion of higher education graduates from the base of 88,000 a year to 125,000 by the year 2001 is unlikely to be achieved by `a major expansion in Commonwealth funding'. In view of this statement, has the Minister noted the views of Professor Ken McKinnon and Professor Karmel that the extra funds could be found by the Commonwealth? I quote Professor McKinnon: On a current funding base of $2.4 billion, the extra money required to fund the extra places over the 13 years to the turn of the century could be found with a growth rate of approximately 2 per cent per annum, comfortably below reasonable expectations of the annual growth of GDP. Senator WALSH —Senator Macklin referred to the desired-I think that was the word he used-increase from 88,000 to 125,000. I do not think that is quite compatible with the tone of the document. It was an indicative figure rather than a desired figure. Regarding what Professors McKinnon and Karmel said, I was not previously aware of that. They said the money could be found. I suppose that is true. The money could be found if there were complete funding from the Commonwealth Budget. It could be found if we raised taxes higher than they would otherwise have been or if some other area of government expenditure was cut below the level that would otherwise have applied. There is another way of course. We could bring in the sort of Budget that John Howard brought in in 1982. We could run an irresponsible fiscal policy and even that will work for a little while, but it will not go on working forever. Whether the advice of those two professors should be followed is, in the end, I suspect, more of a value judgment than an economic one. I am also aware of a statement made by an academic colleague of at least one of the other people mentioned, that is, Professor Helen Hughes, who said that she recognised that she was a member of the most protected industry in Australia. The PRESIDENT —On two occasions recently senators, in referring to standing order 364, have asked that documents quoted by senators who are not Ministers be tabled. Standing order 364 clearly contemplates that a motion be moved for the tabling of a paper quoted by a senator. Standing order 364 reads: A document quoted from by a Senator not a Minister for the Crown may be ordered by the Senate to be laid upon the Table; such Order may be made without Notice immediately upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator who has quoted therefrom. Senators have fallen into the practice of not moving a motion, but asking for the tabling of such documents. The difficulty with this is that senators who are not Ministers need leave to table a document. While leave may be granted at any time for a senator who is not a Minister to table a document, this has nothing to do with standing order 364. It is suggested that, if senators want to make use of standing order 364, they move a motion in accordance with the standing order. The alternative is for the senator who quotes from a document to seek leave to table it. I will circulate this statement to all senators. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.02) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Lewis moving a motion of which he gave notice earlier this day. I move that motion not only because of what has occurred in the other place today-that is, the refusal of the Government to take up the motion of the Opposition that it should explain its position with respect to Dr Blewett's inexcusable breach of the privacy of Australian citizens over the last few days-but also because of the contemptuous way in which issues touching on the privacy of Australians have been dealt with by senators in Question Time today. I remind the Senate that in Question Time today Senator Puplick addressed a question to Senator Cook. He referred to the improper release of data by Dr Blewett to a Government backbencher. He also referred to previous releases of personal information relating to medical practitioners, for example, during the New South Wales doctors dispute of April-May 1985, and to other details of breaches of the confidentiality which supposedly applies with respect to these medical records. I remind the Senate of the quite extraordinary way that Senator Cook chose to respond to that question. He expressed some considerable concern at the fact that medical practitioners had dared to charge more than what he called the recommended fee when in fact there is no recommended fee. There is a schedule fee which relates to the amount of refund made by Medicare to doctors or to their patients. The most worrying thing about the answer by Senator Cook was that in some peculiar way he seemed to think that the quite legal activities of doctors in charging other than the schedule fee was something which justified the illegal release of private information which could touch upon not only the rights of doctors but also the rights of any Australian who is obtaining medical treatment in this country from a medical practitioner. There is no other explanation for the-- Senator Crowley —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Senator Chaney used the words `illegal release of documents'. That has not been established. It is contrary to the evidence in statements by the Government. I ask for the removal of that phrase. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator CHANEY —Thank you, Mr President. There clearly is no point of order because there are a number of cases in which information has been released contrary to the terms of the statute. The really worrying thing is that a Minister in this place can suggest that, because people have behaved in a way which was contrary to the way that this Government believed they should behave, that justified the release of confidential information about them. That is a reminder of the debates that have taken place in this chamber with respect to the identity card and other issues. That brings me to the other point I wish to raise in moving this motion. The first question asked in Question Time today was to Senator Walsh about proposals by the Government to introduce a tax file numbering system. The Opposition sought information about whether this system would be introduced, whether the details of it would be provided to the Australian people or whether that was being withheld pending the New South Wales State election. It is quite interesting that in his reply Senator Walsh referred to the debates which had taken place with respect to the identity card. I remind the Senate of the words he used about the arguments against the identity card. Senator Walsh talked about the `spurious veil' which was being drawn-- Senator Crowley —On a point of order: Senator Chaney is moving a motion for the suspension of standing orders. It seems to me that what he is talking about goes to the substance of that debate and not to an argument for the suspension of Standing Orders. I know, Mr President, that you had difficulty in ruling on this matter in a previous debate of particular relevance to me. But I submit that the honourable senator is now widely outside the standing orders that allow a debate on the suspension of Standing Orders and the evidence for its justification. Senator Chaney is clearly debating the substance of the arguments that will follow once the suspension is allowed, if that so happens. I ask you, Mr President, to rule that he is not debating the suspension of Standing Orders but that he is going to the substance of the arguments he wants to put later. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr President: The clear obligation on me in moving this motion is to explain to the Senate why the Opposition believes that Standing Orders should be suspended and this matter should be dealt with now. My remarks so far have related to the evidence of the last hour that this is a matter about which the Senate is entitled to be concerned. As it happens, it is proposed that I should speak only on the suspension motion. It is our wish to move the substantive motion, which will be moved by Senator Lewis. I understand that the Government will not be opposing the motion. I do not wish to detain the Senate at any great length but, as far as the point of order is concerned, quite clearly it is incumbent on me to show why we regard this as a matter that should be brought forward now. I ask for your ruling, Mr President. Senator Button —I intervene somewhere between Senator Chaney and Senator Crowley on this matter. The Government will not oppose the suspension of Standing Orders. I have indicated that to Senator Chaney. Normally when the suspension of Standing Orders is sought, as I understand it, the practice in the Senate is to give a brief explanation as to why that suspension is sought. I hope that, because of the circumstances which I have outlined, that will be the case. Senator Chaney seemed to be getting into full flight when Senator Crowley intervened. Once that happens, he can go on for a long time. I hope that Senator Chaney will accept the view that I have just put, even if you, Mr President, do not rule on it. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Unfortunately, we have not adopted the sessional order that would have limited this debate. Senator Chaney can speak only to the suspension of Standing Orders, and I ask him to do so. Senator CHANEY —The interventions by Senator Crowley are a very good reason for not adopting a new standing order. She has taken up most of the time so far by raising spurious points of order. No doubt that could be done if there was a five-minute time limit on speakers. That certainly convinces me, Mr President, that the proposed reform is one that should not be adopted by the Senate. I return briefly to the case which I wish to make, for the reasons which I have outlined-namely, that we believe that the Senate should carry this motion and we should deal with the substantive motion. The simple fact is that in the House of Representatives today the Government has shown contempt for these proper matters of concern about the privacy of Australian citizens. Today two Senate Ministers, in answers to questions, have shown the same contempt. I believe that the hundreds of thousands of Australians who campaigned against the identity card will note Senator Walsh's reference to spurious veils being drawn against the attempt to cover up illicit activities. That is an argument they would reject with contempt and which I reject with contempt. I simply say there are serious matters here which go to the privacy of Australians, and which go to important issues of civil liberties. They should not be treated with the contempt that has been shown them by the Government in this chamber today, and I therefore commend the motion to the Senate. I ask that we pass the motion and allow Senator Lewis to move his motion forthwith. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.10) —I move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. I move straight to the admissions made by the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett-he is not a doctor of medicine; he is a doctor of philosophy-made in the House of Representatives yesterday. Senator Coates —So what? Senator LEWIS —Someone over there interjects `So what?' in regard to Dr Blewett. I say that because a lot of the members of the community originally thought that he was a doctor of medicine and held him in some high regard for that. Since then their regard for him has fallen considerably. He is no longer held in high regard by either the medical profession or the people of Australia. Yesterday Dr Blewett conceded in the House of Representatives that he had misled the Parliament but, further than that, that he had in fact provided the honourable member for Canning, Mr Gear, with material containing information which enabled the doctors about whom the statistics had been released to be identified. Senator Schacht —How? Senator LEWIS —Senator Schacht says `How?'. Let me explain. Yesterday afternoon Dr Blewett, in stating that Mr Gear was provided with information, said: He was provided, through my office, with material containing no identification of doctor, provider number, or patient . . . That is what he said in his original answer. He subsequently came back into the chamber and said: The HIC- the Health Insurance Commission- has informed me this afternoon that its advice to me was in error and that contrary to earlier advice, some provider numbers were included with the statistical information. So the provider numbers, which identify the doctors, were provided to Mr Gear. That is contrary to the Health Insurance Act. Let me go straight to one of Dr Blewett's great defences. What he is in effect saying is that it was the HIC which provided him with the material and it was in error-as though it was the HIC's fault. But he conceded, to quote from what he said to the House of Representatives yesterday: It is my office practice to ensure that the relevant information is complied with in respect of any statistical material from the HIC which may have passed through the office. It- that is, his office- does this by checking that the material does not contain anything that would identify either doctors or patients. So Dr Blewett claims that the HIC gave him material which contained this information, and the poor old HIC was terribly wrong in doing this. But he also claims that his office checks all that material anyway. So, right from the word go, he has confessed his own guilt. However, Dr Blewett is guilty not simply of misleading the Parliament. Of course he could be forgiven for that because he came straight back into the Parliament after his office had checked out the answer and said, `I was wrong: I gave you the wrong answer'. Anyone can accept that a Minister during Question Time could give the wrong answer, but this Minister confessed in the course of his explanation that he had committed a breach of his own Act, the Health Insurance Act. The Act is relevant in discussing whether or not this action is an offence. It would be difficult enough for a Minister to come before the Parliament and admit that he had been charged with some offence not relating to his office; for example, a drink-driving offence. In that event undoubtedly the Parliament would challenge him and there would be all sorts of debate about his propriety and whether he should remain a Minister as a result of the offence with which he was charged. This is not that sort of a case. This is an offence arising directly out of the Minister's own actions in the administration of his Department and the administration of his portfolio, and out of his own personal responsibility as Minister for Community Services and Health. His actions are covered by his own Act, and he has acted illegally according to that Act. That is an offence that is totally different from the sort of offence that I referred to before which some Minister might commit outside his portfolio. This is an offence specifically within the administration of his own portfolio. I understand that the Solicitor-General has advised that on the basis of certain presumptions, to which I will draw honourable senators' attention, the Minister has not committed a criminal offence. What the Solicitor-General has said, in effect, is that a prima facie case has been established against the Minister but that if the Minister would like to go into the witness box and give sworn evidence that he did not know the material supplied to Mr Gear contained this information, and it was not within his reasonable ability to ascertain that that was contrary to the Act, it may be that he would be acquitted of the criminal charge laid against him. The point is that the Minister should not be a Minister of the Crown until that matter has been resolved by the courts in his favour, or dealt with otherwise. It may very well be that he is able to establish before a court of law that he was not guilty of the offence-- Senator Chaney —It would have to be a technical defence. Senator LEWIS —As my colleague Senator Chaney says, technically he may not be guilty of a criminal offence, but there can be no doubt that what he has done here is release confidential information about the medical profession of Australia to his colleague Mr Gear for crass political purposes to do with trying to denigrate the medical profession of Australia. It is as clear as anything that that it what it was for. He wanted to put down the medical profession of Australia by saying that doctors are overcharging in some way. To do that he released this material, contrary to statute. I believe that Dr Blewett would not be able to establish to the satisfaction of a court that he is not guilty of an offence, because I doubt the so-called defences raised by the Solicitor-General in his advice. I turn to the minute paper tabled in the Senate today by Senator Cook. I draw attention to the fact that this minute, written by Mr Wilcox, the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission, is dated 7 January 1988-months after the horse had bolted from the stable, because the material was released to Mr Gear back in the middle of 1987. In January of 1988, when Mr Wilcox realises the nature of the offence which he and the Commission have committed, contrary to the Act-because there is no doubt that they as well as the Minister have acted contrary to the Act-Mr Wilcox writes to the Minister and says: Last year the Commission supplied your office with information about the charging behaviour of a sample of different specialist groups . . . The information supplied to your office did not identify either the doctors or their patients. That is what Mr Wilcox wrote to the Minister on 7 January in an attempt to enable the Minister to escape. That letter contains an untruth. It says that it did not identify the doctors, whereas we now know that it did identify the doctors because it contained the provider number-that is, the service number by which each doctor in Australia is identified. This letter then suggested a response to the Minister to be written to Dr Passmore. That response contains within it a paragraph which absolutely destroys Dr Blewett. Mr Wilcox is suggesting that Dr Blewett write the following paragraph to Dr Passmore: You have my assurance that no data identifying either doctors or their patients was provided by my Office or the Commission to Mr Gear. As soon as Dr Blewett saw that paragraph, he knew that he could not give such an assurance because by then he had come to realise that the data identifying the doctors had, in fact, been provided by the office of the Commission and had been available to Mr Gear. In fact, Mr Wilcox has condemned his own Minister by this correspondence. If Dr Blewett is able to have himself acquitted on some sort of criminal charge, that is a matter for Dr Blewett's own personal satisfaction. But the point which I raise in this debate is not Dr Blewett in particular, but the failure of this Government to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. How could the people of Australia trust this Government in any way? It was proposed that the Minister, Dr Blewett, would be in charge of the Australia Card administration. I refer to six instances of the release of information by Dr Blewett contrary to the privacy provisions which apply in relation to health statistics. Firstly, let me talk about May 1985 during the New South Wales doctors dispute when he released HIC information to the Sun-Herald newspaper. Honourable senators will remember the row that erupted as a result of the release of that information. In April 1986 the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances had to disallow the health insurance regulations because they would have allowed this Minister to release information from the HIC to people not connected with the health industry. I turn now to the case of Dr McGoldrick, a Collins Street specialist who faced a committal hearing on 11 charges of using an instrument or other means to procure abortions. He was cleared of the charges. But this was another case of the invasion of a person's privacy. The charges were based on the release of confidential records disclosing the sex lives of 11 teenage girls. The records were released by the Commission and led to a raid by the police upon Dr McGoldrick's surgery. The magistrate in the case said that the records had been unlawfully obtained but, worse, as a result of the release of that information a woman who was to be a witness lost her job. She had been the victim of computer matching and cross-referencing aimed at discovering which women had abortions administered by Dr McGoldrick. I say to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) that the women of Australia were very angry at what happened under the administration of Dr Blewett in relation to this matter. Senator Knowles —It was a shameful exercise. The Minister should not be laughing. Senator LEWIS —Yes, I agree with my colleague, Senator Knowles. The medical profession was also very angry with what happened. This is the man who, in November 1986, wrote a letter to Dr McNicol in the Australian Capital Territory in which he said that only 20 officers within the Department of Community Services and Health had access to confidential information on doctors' incomes. In fact, in due course there was a memorandum from Mr John Loy, Mr Young's former senior private secretary, to Dr Blewett's private secretary which disclosed that the Australian Federal Police investigations had identified 197 people throughout Australia who had access to the Health Insurance Commission's information on doctors' incomes. How on earth could we in any way trust this Minister with any confidential information? It makes an absolute mockery of Dr Blewett's statement in that letter to Dr McNicol in which he said: My Department makes every effort to safeguard confidential information. Senator Reid —What a joke! Senator LEWIS —It is a joke. On 18 November 1986, Dr Blewett indicated in the House of Representatives that identification data could be released to various community leaders for verification. On 23 February 1988 we were faced with the revelation that he provided his colleague, Mr Gear, with all sorts of confidential information in relation to doctors' salaries and that it was being used for political purposes. That is what it was all about. It is not as if it was to do with some sort of statistical arrangements. It was to be used specifically for the purpose of an attack by Mr Gear on the medical profession. I ask: `What next from Dr Blewett?'. I say to Senator Button-I see him sitting at the table and I presume that as Leader of the Government in the Senate he will respond to this-`Do you appreciate what this is doing to the fabric of ministerial responsibility in this nation? How can we trust any statements made by any Ministers while they have got this bad apple among their number? How can we trust them when they stand up and give us some assurance that they will do something? For all we know they may retire or lose their position and we would have Dr Blewett as the responsible Minister to carry out the undertaking, or whatever it is, that they would be providing us with. How can we trust them while we have this bad apple in there rotting away at the core of the Westminster system?'. What other material will Dr Blewett reveal next? Will he be looking, for example, at the acquired immune deficiency syndrome positive people in Australia and disclosing information about their number and what doctors are treating them? Will he be looking at sexually transmitted diseases, or any of the other matters which people believe it is their right to keep as their own personal information or confidential between them and their doctor? It is certainly not confidential to Dr Blewett or his confidants and certainly not confidential to the members of the Australian Labor Party. I refer to the proposed wealth inquiry that this Government was going to conduct. We have not heard much about it lately because we have got an election coming up in New South Wales. But when that election is over no doubt the Labor Party will, once again, resurrect its proposed wealth inquiry in which the people of Australia will be required to supply all sorts of information regarding their own personal wealth. Will that material be confidential or will it be available for distribution among people? We hear that the Government has now put the extended tax file number system on hold until after the New South Wales election. Again, that will provide the Government with all sorts of statistical information applicable to individuals around Australia. Again, we ask the question: Will that remain confidential? How could we trust any of these Australian Labor Party Ministers of the Crown? It is very reminiscent of the last time we had an Australian Labor Government under Mr Whitlam and the sort of behaviour that was going on there. This Government and this Minister have disclosed themselves as being totally untrustworthy. Indeed, as I said before, this Minister should resign-there is no question about that-until the question of his guilt or innocence of this offence has finally been resolved by the courts of the land. Having not resigned, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of this country should have dismissed him until that situation had occurred. Having lost three Ministers, this Government is in a situation where it will not allow a Minister to resign and will not dismiss a Minister; it has not got the courage. I note that we have in the Senate a Minister who has confessed to misleading the Senate. Of course, he has not resigned either. So really there are five Ministers in this Government who have been or are in trouble, but they are trying desperately to ride out the troubles that they now have. I say to the Senate that this Minister should resign. The Prime Minister should have sacked this Minister for his behaviour. Indeed, this Government should be condemned for its total failure to treat the confidential affairs of the people of Australia with the privacy to which they are entitled. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.31) —I am a little disappointed in the speech made by Senator Lewis. He has been a member of the Senate for a long time and I have developed a great affection for him. He is sort of like a dinosaur in this chamber, and one can only be fond of dinosaurs. But the most revealing thing about his speech is Senator Lewis's gallery of demonology which he really got onto towards the end of his speech. He spoke of monsters in the Government, the Whitlam Government and rotten apples. Horticultural analogies come more comfortably to Senator Lewis than the presentation of any real substance in respect of this matter. This is the second time in a fortnight that we have had from Senator Lewis huff and puff which was intended to blow the door down; but it is not going to do so. One can mount a huff and puff case on the question of the privacy of Australian citizens. I think Senator Lewis reveals himself very much when he makes it quite clear that there are two categories of citizens in Australia about whom he has different concerns. The first category is the medical profession. He had great respect for Dr Blewett when he thought he was a doctor of medicine, but when he found out that instead he was a doctor of philosophy he lost his respect for Dr Blewett. It is of no use Senator Stone nodding his head in the manner that he is. It will fall off if he does too much of that. Senator Chaney —You are misrepresenting what Senator Lewis said. Senator BUTTON —I am not misrepresenting-- Senator Stone —I raise a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw his remark about me. I was not nodding my head; in fact I was shaking my head at the inaccuracy of his remarks. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! No point of order is involved. Senator BUTTON —He may have been dozing off. Senator Lewis made a revealing statement, consistent with the total conduct of the Opposition in relation to questions of privacy. Senator Lewis has expressed outrage in this chamber about wage increases being granted to ordinary workers in this country. Every wage increase in Australia-- Senator Chaney —Wrong again. Senator BUTTON —No, it is not wrong. Every wage increase in the past five years has been opposed by the Opposition. Senator Lewis —Not by me. Senator BUTTON —By the Opposition. Senator Chaney —More red herrings. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney can call it a red herring or whatever he likes; it is true. Every wage increase in the past five years has been opposed by the Opposition. Opposition senators bleat in this chamber about the standard of living of the average Australian going down. Senator Vanstone —Why are you pointing at me? Senator BUTTON —Because the honourable senator is a large object and I can focus on her. Senator Stone —Why don't you get back to Dr Blewett? Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator does not mind, I will handle it in my own way. I know of Senator Stone's capacity to catch everyone on the Opposition side, but that does not extend to me. The fact is that every wage increase has been opposed by the Opposition except wage increases for doctors in the Australian Capital Territory. When the doctors went on strike in support of an exorbitant claim-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. My point or order is that the Senate is debating a motion which has been moved by Senator Lewis and which relates to the Government's failure to respect the privacy of Australian citizens, and it expresses concern about that. What we have from the Leader of the Government in the Senate is a blustering attempt to debate any subject other than that which is before the Senate at the moment. I ask you to remind the Leader of the Government in the Senate that he is here to debate the subject matter of this motion and not to indulge in sidetracking and the introduction of red herrings which have nothing to do with the matter which is being debated in the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! No point of order is involved. Senator Lewis —I raise another point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. In the course of his remarks Senator Button made reference a few moments ago to the size of a senator on this side of the chamber. I ask Senator Button to withdraw that outrageous remark. Senator BUTTON —Mr Acting Deputy President, I withdraw it, but let it be quite clear that I am very conscious of the fact that some senators are bigger than others. I have never retreated from that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! I ask Senator Button to return to the motion before the Chair. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I cannot see Senator Button from where I am sitting. Could you ask him to stand up? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! No point of order is involved. Senator BUTTON —Some people have eye defects and some people have other defects, but I am not responsible for that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Button to return to the motion before the Chair and I ask that interjections from my left cease. Senator BUTTON —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, because numerous attempts have been made to distract me from what is my essential point, namely, that Senator Lewis's speech was very revealing about the standards of privacy and civil liberties which he accords to doctors, but he is infinitely less vocal about other citizens in the community. The issue that has touched Senator Lewis on the raw is the fact that doctors are involved. I am just making the point that the Opposition has demonstrated a very consistent behavioural pattern in relation to the affairs of the medical profession. Senator Lewis —Just confine your remarks to the Opposition and not me personally in those allegations. Senator BUTTON —All right. I come back to the remarks made by Senator Lewis in support of his motion which states that the Senate condemns the Government for its failure to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. Senator Lewis made two or three points. The first point he wanted to make was that the privacy of individual citizens who happen to be medical practitioners has been adversely affected or damaged by what has happened. The basis of that argument is that the Health Insurance Commission in error made information available to Dr Blewett's office which in error made that information available to others on the basis of a misunderstanding of the Health Insurance Commission documents. Senator Knowles —He made the same error before. Senator BUTTON —Let me finish. Senator Lewis kept on saying, in terms of privacy, that doctors were identified. The real question is: To whom were they identified? The honourable senator was silent on that point. No doctors have been identified from what has happened. Opposition members can yell and carry on, but that is right, is it not? Senator Stone is indicating that it is not right. Which doctor has been identified? I ask Senator Stone to get up and tell us that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Does Senator Button wish to debate the motion or does he wish to remain seated? Senator BUTTON —I am happy to debate the motion. Since Senator Stone nodded with such vehemence-I expressed concern about his condition earlier in this debate-perhaps he can get up and answer my question. I asked the rhetorical question: Which doctors have been identified and to whom? That is the important question. Senator Lewis —To Gear, for a start. Senator BUTTON —No doctor has been identified to Mr Gear. It is back to the old stuff: A desperate Opposition grabbing at any opportunity to discuss anything other than the major issues. Senator Chaney always wants to talk about the major issues in the Senate, but under his leadership there has been less attention to major issues in the last fortnight than we have ever seen in this history of the Senate. It is quite extraordinary. So we get the analogy of the bad apple in the Government. Senator Lewis asked a rhetorical question about how he can believe me as I might be affected by the bad apple. I might. Senator Lewis —Or replaced by him. Senator BUTTON —That is a real worry for you, I recognise, Senator, because it is quite likely that in five or six years' time Dr Blewett might replace me as Minister. It is quite possible. But all this stuff about the fabric of ministerial responsibility, and so on, is words, words, words. The point of the honourable senator's motion is to try to establish something, and he has not done so. The second point he went to is the Solicitor-General's opinion, which the honourable senator misrepresented because he said that the Solicitor-General had given advice on the basis of certain presumptions. True, he did that. But the honourable senator then went on to say in his remarks that the presumption inherent in the Solicitor-General's opinion was that Dr Blewett was guilty-a nice phrase that he wanted to use. That is not the presumption in the opinion at all. I invite the honourable senator to read the opinion from the Solicitor-General and come back and have another go in a week or two. Of course, what the Opposition was anxious to establish last night in the House of Representatives, and again this morning, was some illegality on behalf of Dr Blewett. The Opposition has not done that-words, words, words from the Opposition in the House of Representatives. I will come back to the point. What has Dr Blewett done? Let us get it clear. Dr Blewett last night made a statement which simply said this: his office had received information from the Health Insurance Commission. Dr Blewett gave an answer at Question Time yesterday about that and then went in and corrected it on the basis of checking that advice. Senator Lewis —He received the information; his office checked that it was all right and then released it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Lewis, you have already spoken in this debate. Senator BUTTON —Yes, and if there is any inquiry that Dr Blewett has set in train it will be, of course, an inquiry into the way in which the Health Insurance Commission provided his office with the information in question. Senator Lewis —Why should it not be an inquiry as to what he did with it? Senator BUTTON —Why should it be? That is something I thought Senator Lewis might have sought to establish. I suppose he is going to say that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility extends to a Minister knowing that he has been given incorrect information. Is the honourable senator saying that a Minister should somehow know that he has been given incorrect information? As soon as Dr Blewett suspected that, he checked it and came back to the House of Representatives and corrected his answer. Senator Lewis —His office checked the information received from the Commission, and they should have realised that it identified doctors. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Lewis, you have spoken in this debate. If you speak once more I shall be forced to take action under Standing Orders against you. Senator BUTTON —There was an interjection in relation to what Dr Blewett was alleged to have done. I was dealing particularly with the question of Senator Lewis's misrepresentation of the opinion of the Solicitor-General, which, of course, is essential to his case, because he says here in the Senate, `I doubt the defences raised on behalf of Dr Blewett by the Solicitor- General'. He doubts them. Senator Watson —Did you check the Act before you made that statement because it has to come through Blewett himself for a release to take place? Senator BUTTON —I am discussing the Solicitor-General's opinion, which I suspect might be better than Senator Watson's, and I am just making the point that I also suspect it may be better than Senator Lewis's. That is all I am doing. The interjection is not to the point. Let me reiterate. In terms of his motion, Senator Lewis says the Government has failed to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. I understand why he used the word `Government' instead of `Dr Blewett'. It was because he cannot really establish the case against Dr Blewett; he has to scoop the Health Insurance Commission as well into his motion, so he talks about the Government, the whole apparatus of government. But when Senator Lewis comes to make his speech he turns his attack on the Minister, Dr Blewett. The first point in terms of Senator Lewis's motion is whether anybody, even by the Health Insurance Commission, has been identified to anybody in terms which adversely affect their rights of privacy. The honourable senator has not, in my view, established one tittle of evidence about that. Secondly, he goes on to misrepresent for the purposes of his argument the opinion of the Solicitor-General. Then he goes on to raise a number of instances in Dr Blewett's career as a Minister in which he alleges similar things have happened. Let me take one example from those with which I am familiar-the Dr McGoldrick case. Honourable senators know what happened there. In the course of the McGoldrick trial a delegated officer gave certain information which was said to consist of confidential records. The Minister has a power of delegation. It was delegated to an officer, who may or may not have used it correctly. I do not want to go into that argument. The only question that can really be asked about that is whether the power of delegation was properly made, but to come into this chamber and gloss over the facts of that-- Senator Chaney —There is no responsibility in the Government for the behaviour of the Health Insurance Commission. Senator BUTTON —No, but as a matter of principle that is right, is it not, Senator Chaney, and you come in here today and try to pretend-- Senator Chaney —No, that is not right. Senator BUTTON —Well, Senator Lewis comes in here today and tries to pretend that Dr Blewett did all that. Senator Chaney —Who is responsible for the Health Insurance Commission? Senator BUTTON —Of course, Dr Blewett is responsible for the Health Insurance Commission, but honourable senators really must recognise that there are degrees of responsibility. The Opposition wants to confuse the notion of ministerial responsibility with responsibility in delegated officers and in organisations like the Health Insurance Commission. Why? Because the confusion helps its case. That is why we get talk of rotten apples. We even get poor old Gough Whitlam dragged into the debate by Senator Lewis. Senator Puplick —`Poor old Gough Whitlam' now, is he? Senator BUTTON —I apologise. I think it is unlikely that he would be listening, but if he is I apologise. Poor Gough Whitlam is dragged into the debate. I use the word `poor' only because throughout his life he has been subjected to numerous criticisms and attacks of the kind that Senator Lewis offered today-many of them unfairly. But whatever his sins, they have nothing to do with Dr Blewett and the subject matter of this debate. This is another example of a debate which, as I said at the beginning, has been characterised by huff and puff. Senator Lewis goes on to say that Dr Blewett should resign. Why should Dr Blewett resign, Senator Lewis? There is no precedent for a Minister being set aside or being asked to stand down while the actions of an agency under his control are being investigated. There is no precedent for that at all. There are, of course, precedents where the allegation of impropriety or ministerial behaviour, and so on, is associated with the Minister's personal impropriety, personal maladministration of public policy, and so on-Mr Robinson in 1978, Mr Young in 1984-but no circumstances where a Minister stood down while the actions of an agency under his control were being investigated. Senator Lewis takes it much further than that. He says Dr Blewett should resign. The whole debate in the Opposition's hands can become very spooky, I suppose, and that is undoubtedly why this motion has been moved. But if we are going to debate issues in the Senate we have to deal with facts and we have to deal with correct interpretations of facts; we cannot rely on the sorts of arguments that have been used by the mover of this motion in the course of his contribution. Senator Walters —It was you who said the Minister had final responsibility. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I agree with that, Senator. Senator Walters —And he did not take that responsibility. Senator BUTTON —I said that, Senator, and I am in the Hansard as having said that. Go away and contemplate what it means and then come back and perhaps challenge my view of this situation at some future time. The motion is not worthy of support because of its general, all-embracing nature. It is a catch-all motion which can pick up anything the Opposition does not like about the Government. It is a ratbag sort of thing which will probably get the support of the Australian Democrats. Senator Stone —They are ratbags? Senator BUTTON —Senator Stone has said that the Democrats are ratbags. I did not say it. I said that it was a ratbag motion. All I would say about the Democrats is that sometimes they are misled about these things. They are not as astute politically as one would like to see them. If they were, the Government would be faced with a better Opposition. That would be good for the system of parliamentary democracy which is not under threat as a result of a motion moved by Senator Lewis. I oppose it. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.51) —Senator Button has said quite rightly that we ought to be looking at the facts of the matter. There are plenty of facts involving the leaking or releasing of confidential information about individuals during the term of the Hawke Labor Government. We are not debating Dr Blewett's academic qualifications or whether individual doctors were identified by the recently released information. We are debating the fact that there was potential, and still is potential, for identification of those individual doctors and that Dr Blewett is the Minister responsible for the release that has led to that potential. The motion before the Senate today is one which we will be supporting-Senator Button got that part right, at least-because it quite properly condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. The Hawke Government's record in this area of privacy protection or, in its case, lack of privacy protection, is appalling. We need to ask ourselves why. Is it mere incompetence? Is it lack of interest in the area? Is it both? Or is it something a little more sinister than that? The basis for the Government's stance on privacy legislation is probably best summarised by a statement made by one of its own Ministers, ironically Dr Blewett, the Minister who is currently in the hot seat-a hot seat which appears to be filling rapidly with a stack of Ministers. Dr Blewett defined privacy as `a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property', which he presumably does not support any more than the right to privacy. That just about says it all. When one looks at this Government's record one sees that it does not support the right to privacy, it does not support the right to private anything, on the grounds that they are bourgeois rights. The latest revelations of leaked confidential information from the Health Insurance Commission, which seems to be making a habit of this, show just how right many of us in this chamber and elsewhere were to fear the Australia card and to question the Government's commitment to privacy legislation. The ID card proposal was neither more nor less than a numbering system for all Australians, instituted to enable the bureaucracy to gather data on ordinary citizens and to keep them under surveillance. Whatever else the Government might have said, the threat to civil liberties posed by the proposed national identification system for Australia, euphemistically and laughingly called the Australia Card, cannot be overstated. The nature of that threat was clearly recognised by the electorate ultimately and almost too late. The concerns that we expressed here, that were finally expressed out in the community, were shown to be justified by the Government's very cavalier attitude to leaked documents that had been brought to the Parliament's attention and to the attention of the public from time to time. Thousands of Australian citizens, many of whom had nothing else much in common, joined together to fight the Australia Card last year precisely because to them it represented a gross threat to privacy, an invasion of their civil liberties and something that they were not prepared to countenance. Apart from our concern and their concern about the Australia Card proposal, we knew that the Government wanted and planned to put responsibility for that card, for that data system, for the citizens covered by that data system, into the hands of the Health Insurance Commission, a body which had given medical files on teenage girls to the Victoria Police and which had leaked details of doctors' incomes to the Sunday newspapers in order, presumably, to blackmail them during the New South Wales doctors dispute, which, allegedly, according to some Sydney doctors, meant that, amongst other things, some of those Sydney doctors had access to confidential information and parameters regarding allowable levels of over-servicing for medical and diagnostic services per patient. The allegations by those Sydney doctors were that they had access, courtesy of the Health Insurance Commission, to confidential information regarding doctors' Medicare income. There were also allegations of the use of leaked confidential Health Insurance Commission information for the purposes of fraud and over-servicing generally and threats of personal injury and actual malicious damage to property. Those things had all been revealed to the Parliament and to the public during a time when the Government was arguing that the appropriate body to have oversight of the centralised data system known as the Australia Card was the Health Insurance Commission. There have also been reports over recent years about the finding of Department of Social Security microfiche on pensions and benefits under a hedge in a Melbourne suburb, of children bringing computer sheets home from school containing Medicare information and of frequent complaints from patients about their medical records being disclosed without authorisation. I am not sure, but I thought I heard a comment from the Government benches saying that that has nothing to do with it. I would have thought that it had everything to do with it. Information is collected, collated and stored by government departments under the responsibility of Ministers. It is only right and proper that that information is retained by them on a purely confidential basis. Whilst not many people go poking around under Melbourne hedges, enough of them do to discover that sort of information. It can prove extremely embarrassing and very damaging to certain individuals. These, then, were the very bureaucracies that the Government wished further to empower in gathering data on Australian citizens. The Government claimed that despite all of these things there was still no need for concern. Somehow a magic wand was going to be waved over the Health Insurance Commission that would ensure that never again, once it was given oversight of all the information, would any of it leak out, would any unauthorised, confidential, private information be put in the hands of anyone who should not have it. The Government claimed further that the privacy legislation associated with the ID card would protect privacy adequately. That claim, too, was a nonsense. For a start, the Government's model was the Swedish model, a model it was putting forward as ideal at the very time the head of the Swedish body was resigning because he said that the Swedish system simply was not working. The Law Council of Australia pointed out that the Government's proposed Data Protection Agency was no real weapon for protecting the privacy of Australian citizens because it could act only after the event, when the damage had been done. Much good privacy protection is then! Academics around the country and legal experts in the Australian Privacy Foundation were unanimous in their view that the card represented an appalling threat to privacy and that the Government's so-called protection against this simply would not work. How could it? It had not in the past, through the Health Insurance Commission; it was unlikely to with the weak privacy protection legislation that the Government was including in its package and the very watered down Data Protection Agency. To make matters worse, of course, when the Government was finally forced to abandon its ID card plans it cynically dumped its privacy legislation too. Had it proceeded with that last year, Dr Blewett certainly would not be in and the bureaucrats in the Health Insurance Commission may not be in the predicament in which they currently find themselves. Every word that has been said during the ID card debate about how important privacy legislation was, how long it has been needed, is still valid. Any statements by the Government that echoed this have proved to be empty rhetoric with its abandonment of that legislation. No more has been seen of the legislation and the Government has been silent on the subject ever since. The Australian Democrats, through my colleague, Senator Michael Macklin, did introduce a private member's Bill on privacy protection to fill the vacuum but we in this place know just what sort of precedence is given to private member's Bills and how much use that Bill is likely to be unless the Government changes its mind and moves to pick up this area. As Senator Macklin pointed out at the time, ID card or no ID card, privacy protection in Australia is long overdue as the Australian Law Reform Commission report and other studies have shown. To bring us back to the central point of this debate, only in the last 24 hours have we had further evidence of the need for such protection and of Dr Blewett's cavalier attitude. Obviously he has had no occasion to change his earlier views about the bourgeois right to privacy and about there being no need therefore to afford it a great deal of protection. The Age reported today that Dr Blewett admitted his office had given a Labor backbencher confidential Medicare information on doctors who overcharged. Apart from the embarrassment to Dr Blewett and the fact that he had to correct an earlier answer he had given in the Parliament, one wonders when he and his colleagues will ever learn. Attempting to dismiss this as `an honest mistake', a phrase which is becoming very capable of being sent up-- Senator Messner —Debased. Senator HAINES —`Debased', Senator Messner says, but it has certainly become the objective of satire in this place in recent weeks. Attempting to dismiss this as an honest mistake simply will not do. Dr Blewett was the Minister responsible. He apparently knew of the discussions between his office and the Health Insurance Commission. So we are talking here about information which was released by a Department over which Dr Blewett had responsibility, information released by that Department which was supposed to be absolutely confidential. As I said earlier, the fact that the provider number may not be able to be used by the backbencher concerned or anybody else to identify individual doctors does not mean it is not possible to do so if somebody gets the key. I have no particular truck for doctors who overcharge or who try to defraud the system but the law as it is at the moment gives those practitioners, and everybody else, the right to have information on them kept confidential. It is our responsibility in this place, and surely the Minister's responsibility, to ensure that that law is abided by. Senator Cook —Senator Haines, do you approve on moral grounds that doctors should in fact charge above the schedule fee? Senator HAINES —If Senator Cook had listened he would have heard me say that I have no time for doctors who overcharge, try to defraud the system or anything else. That is not the point: the point is that at the moment the law says they are entitled to have information which is collected and collated on them retained as confidential. I repeat: we in this place-and certainly the Minister responsible-ought to have as our primary function ensuring that the law as it stands is obeyed. If we want to change the law that is another matter entirely but that is not what we are talking about now. What we are talking about here is information which was supposed to be kept absolutely confidential. It related to medical information about private citizens who are also entitled to expect that confidentiality will be scrupulously protected. When Senator Cook talks about moral points, does he think it is valid in a chase after doctors who are ripping off the system that we reveal publicly sensitive information about the medical conditions and the treatments provided for those medical conditions of ordinary Australian citizens? I certainly hope not. It is quite unacceptable for such information to be turning up in court cases, to be given to backbenchers for use on a committee and to be splashed all over the front pages of newspapers. All these things have happened in recent years-it was most recently revealed yesterday-under this Government because the state of privacy protection under this Government is inadequate and the only legislation extant in the area, as I said earlier, is a private member's Bill introduced by the Australian Democrats. Most of these incidents have emanated from the Health Insurance Commission and that should put us on our guard in future, particularly as the next specific proposal from this Government will almost certainly be for an upgraded tax file number. As Senator Lewis said, this will not be until after the New South Wales election. Nevertheless that is likely to be the next proposal. I remind honourable senators that this proposal will be coming from a government that put up the dangerous and potentially destructive ID card accompanied by some hopelessly inadequate privacy protection legislation and whose Ministers' offices have been known to leak confidential information to the media. It does not take long to work out the probable direction of the upgraded tax file number. It will be, if this Government has any say in the matter, simply an ID card in disguise. I think it is worth repeating something that I said in October last year in a debate about the ID card and tax file numbers. An upgraded tax file number, a high integrity tax file number, can certainly be extremely useful in eliminating at least some more tax evasion in this country; it should not be used, however, as an ID card by another name. `Upgraded' and `high integrity' are not synonyms for `randomly extended'. I think we need to be careful that the Government does not come into this place and say, `Ah, but all the Opposition parties recommended that a tax file number should be upgraded, given higher integrity, and this is what we are doing'. The Government should not attempt to extend its use in all sorts of other areas and then cry that we on this side of the chamber have done an about-face. I warn the Government now that if it thinks it can try to sneak in an Australia Card by the back door it is very much mistaken. I have no doubt that the Government will pursue its elaborate proposals for data collection, backed up by bureaucracies that are just itching to get their hands on as much data as possible, or worse, I suppose, itching to use it against private citizens, often for purely political purposes. I suggest that the time is long overdue for privacy protection laws in this country-privacy protection laws which have some teeth and some meaning, which are wide-ranging and properly enforceable. At the very least, they should encompass the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines covering such things as purpose specification principles and use limitation principles. As to the latter, I might add that, had we had such legislation, the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia would not have been able to misuse the information on people's payslips in the way that it did a few years ago to find out which members of the Public Service were or were not members of unions. The OECD guidelines also look at openness, accountability and security safeguards. Rather than read them all out, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the OECD principles with regard to privacy. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Exhibit 1: The OECD Principles Collection Limitation Principle 1. There should be limits to the collection of personal data and any such data should be obtained by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with the knowledge or consent of the data subject. Data Quality Principle 2. Personal data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used, and, to the extent necessary for those purposes, should be accurate, compete and kept up-to-date. Purpose Specification Principle 3. The purposes for which personal data are collected should be specified not later than at the time of collection and the subsequent use limited to the fulfilment of those purposes or such others as are not incompatible with those purposes and as are specified on each occasion of change of purpose. Use Limitation Principle 4. Personal data should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified in accordance with [Principle 3] except: (a) with the consent of the data subject; or (b) by the authority of law. Security Safeguards Principle 5. Personal data should be protected by reasonable security safeguards against such risks as loss or unauthorised access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure of data. Openness Principle 6. There should be a general policy of openness about developments, practices and policies with respect to personal data. Means should be readily available of establishing the existence and nature of personal data, and the main purposes of their use, as well as the identity and usual residence of the data controller. Individual Participation Principle 7. An individual should have the right: (a) to obtain from the data controller, or otherwise, confirmation of whether or not the data controller has data relating to him; (b) to have communicated to him, data relating to him (i) within a reasonable time; (ii) at a charge, if any, that is not excessive; (iii) in a reasonable manner; and (iv) in a form that is readily intelligible to him; (c) to be given reasons if a request made under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) is denied, and to be able to challenge such denial; and (d) to challenge data relating to him and, if the challenge is successful, to have the data erased, rectified, completed or amended. Accountability Principle 8. A data controller should be accountable for complying with measures which give effect to the principles stated above. Senator HAINES —I thank the Senate. Only when privacy laws take this form, that is, when they are extensive and enforceable, will ordinary Australians be safe from bureaucrats, from private organisations-it must cover those as well as public organisations-and from governments which arrogantly believe that they have the right to invade people's privacies, to collect information on them and to leak that information to others if it suits their political purposes at the time. The Australian Democrats, as Senator Button indicated he realised, support the motion moved by Senator Lewis condemning the Hawke Government for its failure to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. I would have liked it even better if Senator Lewis had appended at the end of that statement a plea for enforceable and extensive privacy legislation to be introduced into the Parliament as a matter of urgency in order to ensure that this sort of incident cannot happen again. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.12) —The motion before the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. This motion brings into question both another failure of the Government and another Minister who has been forced to admit that he has misled the Parliament and to plead that it was not really his responsibility but was all the fault of the bureaucracy. The truth of the matter is that it is the fault of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and it is the responsibility of the Government. On any reasonable construction of the principles of ministerial responsibility, this Minister should have resigned. The reason that he has not resigned has a great deal to do with the last appointment to the Ministry. As the last appointment to the Ministry was Senator Bolkus, one can only tremble at the prospect of who Dr Blewett's replacement would be. We have in the shape of Senator Bolkus a Minister who, in terms of his responsibilities in this chamber, is so distrusted even by his own side of politics that he is not allowed to represent in this place any other Minister in the Government, despite the obvious evidence that the other Ministers on the front bench are severely overburdened in their work and could do with a little relief in that regard. All of the grave charges which Senator Lewis made in moving this motion stand absolutely unanswered by the Government. Those people who are chess players will know what the Nimzo-Indian defence is. It consists of sending out a knight first to try to cover the front line-in this case the front bench-and then moving a pawn up alongside it in the hope that one will be able to divert the oncoming attack. We now have a new version of that-the Button defence. One sends Senator Button out first to giggle, to make smart alec remarks, to try to do everything except address the substantive issues which are before us; then one finds a pawn to wheel out alongside him to support the Government's case, in the hope that this will obscure the real failings of the Government. Let us go specifically to Senator Button's attempted defence. It rested upon the proposition that the release of the provider numbers of the individual doctors concerned somehow was not an identification. The very purpose of a provider number is to identify an individual doctor for the purpose of collating data about that doctor, about the fees that he or she charges and about the Medicare payments and rebates that are made in relation to that doctor. A provider number attaches to one doctor and one doctor only. Anybody who knows the provider number of an individual doctor is able to see from any list whether that individual appears on the list, if not by name, at least by provider number. The whole purpose of the provider number is to be an identification of an individual. That material was supplied to Mr Gear. It was in column form. That means one of two things. Either Mr Gear knew precisely what those numbers were and did not have to obtain any further information because he knew they were provider numbers-frankly, if he had ever filled in a medical rebate application form in pre-Medibank days he would have seen a space in which provider numbers eventually had to be written and he would know what they were-or, the other alternative, he was too incompetent even to wonder what a column of numbers on the sheet of paper was. Honourable senators can pick one of the two. Either he knew precisely what the numbers were or he was too stupid to ask about them or to try to find out. That is the point about these provider numbers. We will come back in a few minutes to the McGoldrick case, but honourable senators will remember that Senator Button's defence of all that was that it really did not matter. Perhaps Dr McGoldrick did not really matter, but what about the situation of those young women who were the victims of the leaking of the McGoldrick information? Even if Senator Cook, in his pathological hatred of the medical profession, is allowed to get away with that, why does he not express at least the slightest degree of concern that in this case it was patients-not doctors-who were identified, who were taken into court and whose parents were visited by members of the police force to find out what was going on? The other point that we had from Senator Button's defence was that there are degrees of responsibility. I know what those degrees of responsibility are. They are based on the sound Australian Labor Party premise that one looks after one's mates even if the people against whose interests one has to do that are the citizens of Australia. We have had today a series of answers and interjections from Senator Cook, the factional ally of the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett. It is to be presumed from what Senator Cook has said that he believes explicitly in Dr Blewett's statement that, as a socialist, `It is the interests of the community that come before the individual's rights'. All socialists believe in that-community before individual. Dr Blewett said: We should not get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. If we wanted any indication that Senator Cook speaks as a socialist in this place, it was his interjection during Senator Haines's speech, when he asked whether she accepted the moral right of doctors to charge more than the fee set by the Government for some prescribed service. The answer to that is unequivocally yes. People have the right to charge more than what some Government bureaucracy sets if others are prepared to pay that for the additional convenience, expertise or whatever it happens to be. People have the choice of going to those doctors who advertise that they do not charge more than the scheduled fee. Senator Cook gave a misleading answer at Question Time in representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. He did not know the difference between a recommended fee and a schedule fee, in putting forward the defence that he did. He said, `Should people be allowed to charge more than a set amount?'. If that were the case, he would certainly have some explanations to make about the behaviour he indulged in when he represented the Western Australian Trades and Labor Council and the unions were in all sorts of rorts and rackets that were going on, getting more than the award or more than the fees that were prescribed for various services. I turn now specifically both to Dr Blewett's record and to the Government's record on the whole question of privacy. Let us start with Dr Blewett. I will put to the Senate seven separate occasions on which Dr Blewett has attempted or actually undertaken steps contrary to the protection of the rights and privacy of individuals in Australia. The first of these involves the matter in April and May of 1985, to which Senator Lewis referred, when doctors in New South Wales were is dispute with the New South Wales State Administration, and the Health Insurance Commission, for which as Senator Button admitted today Dr Blewett is ultimately responsible, leaked information not by provider number but by name of physician. Information about their incomes was leaked. Despite demands by the Australian Medical Association and everybody else for an inquiry into that matter, there was a simple cover-up. The second instance-and I am glad that my distinguished friend Senator Cooney is in the chamber-was the occasion on which we relied upon the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, under Senator Cooney's chairmanship, to head off an attempt by Dr Blewett to rort the system on a permanent basis. The seventy-ninth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances of April 1986 was a report on the Committee's scrutiny of certain health insurance regulations disallowed by effluxion of time. When Senator Cooney spoke to the chamber on this matter on 17 April 1986, in terms of what was the purport of the regulations that Dr Blewett was putting down, he said: These regulations appear to be a major departure in that they prescribe, as a recipient of secret material, a person who has no official involvement or connection with the Health Insurance Commission or the investigation of medifraud. In addition, the prescription is totally open-ended in that in theory it makes lawful the release to Social Security of any information held by the Commission. Clearly this could include medical information. So there was actually an attempt by Dr Blewett, headed off by Senator Cooney and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of this chamber, to give statutory basis to the permanent ministerial leak. The third instance involves correspondence between Dr Blewett himself and Dr McNicol, the National Co-Secretary of the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and between Dr Blewett's Senior Private Secretary and the Private Secretary to the then Special Minister of State, Mr Young. In that correspondence Dr Blewett in the first instance claimed that information regarding medical records was available to a very small number of people. That is what he told Dr McNicol and others. Yet by minute of 11 November 1986 Mr Young's Senior Private Secretary reveals that as a result of Australian Federal Police investigations there were in fact 197 people throughout Australia who had access to the information. Do honourable senators call that an attempt to protect personal privacy in this area? I turn to the next occasion; which concerned Dr Blewett and the Australia Card. We remember that one of the things about the ill-fated Australia Card, the unlamented Australia Card, was that we were going to have a situation in which personal data about individuals would be verified not simply by documentary record but by in fact submitting it to persons in the community who allegedly could verify it. In the House of Representatives on 18 November 1986 Dr Blewett said in relation to this issue: . . . the verification procedure depends very much on the community leaders who would be granted the right of that verification. Community leaders! We know what the Australian Labor Party believes community leaders are-community leaders live in the Australian Council of Trade Unions; community leaders are the sorts of people who are appointed to boards and commissions and all of the other sinecures that the Labor Party has around the place. Senator Richardson probably believes that Tommy Domican was a community leader. These are the people who would be granted the right to verify data about individuals. Dr Blewett had no difficulty in standing up in the Parliament and saying that the whole system would depend on which individuals we give the right to verify information to. We then had the question, back on the medical profession, of pathologists. On 23 November 1986 the National Times had a headline: `Confidential Canberra Figures Revealed. New study shows that some pathologists are averaging more than a million a year'. Where does it get these figures? They are the figures for the Health Insurance Commission. They were confidential. They were secret. And they were all over the newspapers because the Health Insurance Commission put them out again. The body for which Dr Blewett is responsible is once again out there in the community making clear not provider numbers but the identity of individual pathologists on this occasion. We then have the McGoldrick case, to which I have already referred, to which Senator Lewis has referred, and which was dismissed by Senator Button as if the police raids, police investigations and police visits to the parents of teenage girls who had had abortions occurred as a result of the Health Insurance Commission releasing information. Madam Acting Deputy President, you would be as scandalised as any member of this chamber at the fact that that sort of thing can take place. What do we get from Dr Blewett? We get neither an apology nor indeed any attempt to improve the system, and we get today from Senator Button a simple dismissal of that whole thing, despite the fact that here was one the most sensitive pieces of personal information, not provider numbers again but individual names, so that the police could visit the parents of these girls and bully them and get them to a situation where they were terrified to act as witnesses in particular court proceedings. Finally, we come to this Gear fiasco, to the admission yesterday that material was improperly released to Mr Gear. If we look at the Solicitor-General's opinion on this matter we can see quite clearly that the information that was released was not released in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It does not matter, Senator Cook, which individual released that information. What matters in this place is which Minister is responsible for the administration of a department, bureaucracy or agency which breaches the law in that regard. That is the responsibility which Dr Blewett has to bear and that is the responsibility that Dr Blewett has to answer for. It is not to be thought that this assault upon privacy is simply related to the Labor Party at this level. The Labor Party throughout Australia has a lamentable record about protecting the personal privacy of individuals. We have seen that those in the Labor Party are very good at putting up obstructions in freedom of information legislation, by imposing higher fees and greater bureaucratic obstruction, when it comes to the question of protecting their mates. We cannot get half the information about John Brown and the World Expo 88 scandal under the Freedom of Information Act because there is freedom from information about Labor Party mates and there are leaks about Labor Party enemies when that information is held in the hands of the bureaucracy. We have only to see what happened to the former Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, in September of 1987, when he wanted to go on the rampage against members of the Liberal Party. He got information about people making withdrawals from the Teachers Credit Society Ltd. He found out personal, private information about them-and Senator Cook, as a Western Australian, would know all about this-and indicated what their personal financial transactions were in order to score some shabby political points in Western Australia. All one can say is: Good riddance to that man as Premier. I suppose he is without doubt the worst Burke who has ever been sent to Ireland-and that says a great deal. This debate is not simply related to the sins of Dr Blewett; it is not simply related to the seven separate instances which I have given to the chamber about Dr Blewett's malfeasance in this matter; it is related to the whole issue of this Government's failure to do anything to protect privacy in this country. Where has been the Labor Party's response to any of the appeals for the introduction of privacy legislation, going back, I suppose, to the 1973 report of Professor Morrison? When the Australia Card was buried the Government buried with it the privacy Bill which it had continually promised that it would enact and which the Opposition parties had continually said they would support and give passage to. But you can see what the Government's attitude was towards privacy, Madam Acting Deputy President. It said, `You can have a privacy Bill, provided that we have an Australia Card'. Australia Card first, then a privacy Bill. It is like the Queen of Hearts, is it not? The verdict first and then the evidence. So we could have a privacy Bill if we had the Australia Card. But then, like a kid who spat the dummy, the Government said `If you don't give us the Australia Card we will also withdraw the privacy Bill'. The two need not have been linked. The Data Protection Agency would have been established had the Government been prepared to proceed with it. But it was not, because it has no interest in the protection of privacy. It is always prepared to use the data which it has collected in a compulsory fashion about individuals, doctors, or whoever it happens to be, and make that information available in the public arena when it suits its political purposes of the moment. That is the Labor Party's approach to privacy. We have seen that the criticisms of the Australia Card and the criticisms of the way in which this Government responds to demands for privacy legislation have been ignored. Every single day in this place we have seen the greatest single argument that there could ever be for some sort of privacy protection in the shape of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). There is no individual-Dr Blewett included-in this country who is less sensitive, less concerned or has less regard for the privacy, the private life and the private affairs of Australian citizens than this Government's Minister for Finance. If it suits his shabby political purpose at any time and under any circumstances to make use of private and personal information, the Minister for Finance can be counted upon, without the slightest degree of hesitation, to make use of it. It is not surprising, since in factional terms I guess he, Senator Cook and Dr Blewett are all part and parcel of the same rather grubby team as far as this is concerned. Senator Lewis has put forward a motion which deals with the question of the whole approach of the Hawke Labor Government to the protection of the privacy of Australian citizens. He made grave charges and accusations. The answer to those was some sort of giggling nonsense from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). There was some congenital inability on his part to address the issues that were raised. He tried to say that this was nothing but an attempt to protect the medical profession-a criticism of doctors' fees and doctors' incomes. But the debate is much wider than that. The principle is much more significant than that. The principle is that this Government has at all times failed to take the necessary steps to secure the legislative or administrative protection of private citizens by way of maintaining some confidentiality of the information which is held about them in government records. Nothing could more strengthen the resolve of the Opposition to resist the ID card-whether it is in its original form or in some backdoor form dreamed up by the Minister for Finance and his allies-than this seventh example from Dr Blewett of the cavalier disregard for the rights of individual Australian citizens. I am glad that today the Senate will be on record condemning the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to protect the privacy of Australian citizens because that failure is manifest and obvious. None of the charges which have been made against the Government has been or will be answered in this debate. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(4.36) —The motion that has been moved by Senator Austin Lewis is in these terms: The Senate condemns the Hawke Government for its failure to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. That is the proposition that is before the Senate. As the last Opposition speaker, Senator Puplick, said, it appears, given the undertakings by the Australian Democrats, that the motion will have the numbers and will be carried. In replying to the debate, on behalf of the Government, I seek to dissuade the Democrats from that course of action. If that is not possible I seek to put the case to the Senate as to why this motion should not be carried and why the condemnation of the Government in the terms that have been put should not go ahead. The first observation about the wording of the motion is important. Given the speeches that have been made, one would have thought that Dr Blewett was on trial. Of course, the motion does not do that. The motion is a motion against the Government and not against Dr Blewett, although anyone listening to this broadcast could have assumed that this was trial by Senate and that whatever due process might be open had been abrogated by some senators who wish to take a particular prosecutory point of view which, as I will show later in my remarks, is not justified. Therefore, the motion is against the Government and not against Dr Blewett. That is the first point. The second point is that it is cast in the widest possible terms. Because it is cast in the widest possible terms it has enabled all sorts of specious arguments to be put, not as if it were argument in support of this motion, but argument that really goes to all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with the particular incident that I believe this motion tries to pretend it addresses. Therefore, we have heard speeches about the Australia Card and about privacy legislation. We have heard a litany of things by Senator Puplick-which I deal with shortly-which are not to the point of what is really the political purpose of this debate. As a motion, in its own terms, it is a fairly fragile thing. It is something that, if it were carried, would be entirely meaningless in terms of the debate with respect to Dr Blewett. One of the terms that will recur in this debate-if anyone on the Opposition side is courageous enough to continue it beyond today-is the term `provider numbers'. It seems to me that much of the debate is about the nature of provider numbers and how they affect confidentiality. It is important, if that be the case, that we should make the meaning of provider numbers quite clear. Provider numbers are a series of code numbers. They do not contain the name of the doctor or the name of any particular patient on whose account they are used. They are a computer code style of number aimed at identifying the doctors by that code. Anyone seeing a bald number would not know to which doctor it refers nor would he know to which patient it might refer. Senator McLean —Not at stage one; but what about further stages? Senator COOK —If one wants to go to further stages he must have a mechanism to link the provider number with the doctor. In this case there is no evidence anywhere-nor has it been alleged that there has been evidence-that any such act of linking up occurred. So if we are talking about provider numbers, let us be clear that provider numbers are incomprehensible gobbledegook, on the face of it, to anyone who sees them. Unless the other essential element is obtained and linked, one is in ignorance as to whom they refer to. I return to this point because I think it is the essential point at the bottom of the debate. Senator Knowles —It would be a good idea if you did, because you have made a mess of it so far. Senator COOK —I will; the honourable senator should just sit up straight and listen. Before I go to the substance of what I have to say, I want to refer to the arguments a number of honourable senators have put. The first speaker deserving of some comment is Senator Chaney, who moved for the suspension of standing orders so that this issue could be brought on. In doing so, Senator Chaney made some very spurious and misrepresentational remarks about why time should be allowed to debate a motion condemning the Government. In particular, he referred to an answer I gave in Question Time today. He utterly misrepresented my answer. I took down Senator Chaney's statement as he made it; it is of two parts. He said that I was pretending that there was something illegal about doctors charging more than the schedule fee. I never pretended that. I will come back to that point because I think it is an important one when we consider the real morality play behind this debate. Senator Chaney then went on to make the point that, according to me, overcharging justifies the release of confidential material. I have never justified the release of confidential material, and Senator Chaney should take those words back because he did not listen to my reply. What I in fact said was that Dr Blewett had made a statement, and I tabled the statement of Dr Blewett which answers the question about confidentiality. It answers it truly, properly and correctly. But I also pointed out-this is what must stick in Senator Chaney's craw-what George Gear, the honourable member for Canning and chairman of the Australian Labor Party's national prices network, was doing. George Gear was wanting to publicise the fact that there exists an unfortunate and widespread practice of some doctors-it is a minority of doctors and certainly not anything like most general practitioners (GPs); mainly the finger is pointed at specialists who have a privileged position in terms of dispensing medical advice-charging more than the proper fee. While that is not illegal, nonetheless consumers of medical services in Australia should know, when they want to choose which doctor they go to for medical attention, that some do not charge the schedule fee, that some charge more. An important element in empowering consumers to make choices about medical services is letting them know that that is the case. George Gear put it in the dimension of asking what the incidence of this occurrence was. He said that Australia-wide last year consumers of medical services paid $160m more than the schedule fee amount in order to get medical attention. That focuses on whether that practice ought to be encouraged. He said that it involved 27.3 per cent of all services, so it is not the case that all doctors do it. Indeed, I think if we asked George Gear he would say that hardly any GP's overcharge; it is mainly the specialists. He went on to point out that an extra $56m was spent by consumers of medical services in New South Wales last year because doctors engaged in this practice, and that $48m in excess of the schedule fee was charged by doctors in Victoria because doctors in that State engage in that practice. So the consumers had a bill of that dimension to pay. Mr Gear also pointed out in his Press release that $3.3m was spent by consumers of medical services in the Australian Capital Territory above the schedule fee price in order to get medical attention, and that involved 56.6 per cent of all medical services dispensed in the Australian Capital Territory. What a greedy little bunch of doctors we have in the Australian Capital Territory. The purpose of releasing this information is to let medical consumers know that charging above the schedule fee goes on, although not universally, and to direct the public's attention to the incidence and the facts of this higher charging. Senator Knowles —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator COOK —The honourable senator cannot stand the heat. Senator Knowles —I can certainly stand the heat. Madam Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to standing order 419, which deals with relevancy in debate. It states: No senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any Question under discussion . . . I put it to you that Senator Cook is currently debating another subject and not the privacy of Australians. He is debating the fees that doctors charge. I ask you to bring him back to the subject matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —I do not consider that there is a point of order but I ask Senator Cook to keep in the mind the point raised. Senator COOK —Let me demonstrate the relevance of my comments. That was an interesting point of order. Here we have the Opposition preaching about privacy, but it tries to raise a point of order to stop me telling any Australians who might read the Hansard or the Press reports that might come from this debate, or listen to the debate on the radio, that there is a degree of overcharging and what the dimensions of that overcharging are. Is it not the right of Australians to have that information? Of course it is their right, and that point of order is irrelevant to this debate as it has no bearing on what the Government is supposed to be being censured for. Having dispensed with the improper inferences and inaccurate misrepresentational remarks made by Senator Chaney when he was seeking to obtain time for the Senate to debate this motion, let me move on to Senator Austin Lewis who proposed this motion on behalf of the Opposition. We all know Senator Lewis is a great defender of doctors. He would be a more impressive advocate for the doctors' cause if he stood up and identified where doctors were wrong so that when he praised them when they were right his words would carry a special emphasis and integrity. But Senator Lewis is on record in this chamber as defending the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Medical Association when it made its claim for an 85 per cent pay increase and backed up that claim-a claim for an increase well above anything any worker in this country has ever got-by imposing work bans. It put in jeopardy the health and medical treatment of Australians in the ACT. That is the sort of cause we have heard espoused by Senator Lewis; that is the sort of backup for doctors we have seen from him. He comes here as though he is a man with clean hands, of absolute integrity, and moves a motion against the Government. We have been waiting to hear from Senator Lewis-from everyone on the Opposition benches-about whether this claim last year for an 85 per cent fee increase for ACT doctors, backed by work bans, is something the Opposition supports. If honourable senators opposite do support it, all their words about wage claims for workers ring hollow as examples of absolute cant and hypocrisy. Senator Haines seized the opportunity of this debate to talk about her views on privacy and why the Australia Card legislation should have gone down. I do not want to drag that issue into the arena, but the motion is cast in such a way that it enables this matter to be discussed and because it has been raised, a word or two of rebuttal should be made. Let me just go back to the arguments that Senator Haines put. All the estimates-they are unchallenged, by and large-indicate that had the Australia Card legislation gone through the not insubstantial figure of around $0.8 billion, as I remember it, would have been recovered as a result of the reduction in welfare and Medicare fraud. The purpose of that card was to recover that amount. The Democrats' argument is that they are looking for a high integrity tax file number to do that. But we are talking about rights here. Who in this chamber, other than the Government, speaks for the rights of those people who want to improve their welfare payments, of those people in need of greater funds applied to health and of those people who want to improve our education system? Who here speaks in favour of those people who want to see more money spent, for example, even on defence, as we heard in the debate here yesterday? If they do want that-and there are legitimate reasons why this Government anguishes over how it can balance its Budget in order to provide the best welfare, health, education and defence services in this country-why do they then require us to cut back by denying revenue that is due to this Government or to the people of Australia by denying a device to get there? That question has never been adequately answered by the Democrats. Those people who are in need of those services-and the services fall short because the funds are not there-are the silent majority who require an answer. I put that again in the faint and, I know, probably pointless hope that it will be answered. The Government has announced that it has a comprehensive set of Bills on privacy legislation. They were withdrawn at the time the Australia Card went out. That legislation was aimed at introducing in this country Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conventions on privacy which have enabled people to inspect their files, to see that those files were properly safeguarded, that the information on them was correct, that work was complete, and to change them if they were not correct. In general terms that is the nature of that privacy legislation. Because it went out with the Australia Card, it needs to be substantially amended in order to bring it back. We are waiting for that to occur; but it will be back and we will have that privacy legislation. Senator Puplick made some vile allegations in this chamber. The first was about my colleague the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Senator Bolkus. He said that Senator Bolkus was so distrusted by his colleagues that he did not have a representational brief up here from another portfolio because somehow or other he was a second-class Minister. Senator Bolkus is not a second-class Minister. I will remind the Senate of the events that have occurred: there was an early Caucus meeting at Kirribilli House in January in order to elect two replacement Ministers, of whom happily I was one. Senator Bolkus's vacancy occurred very recently and, therefore, he has not had the opportunity, like the Minister for Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) and myself, to work himself into his portfolio. Senator Bolkus will be here shortly with a representational brief. The man took over in the Ministry at the beginning of last week and we want to see that he gets a chance to get on top of his portfolio before other responsibilities are put on his shoulders. That is a vile allegation by Senator Puplick and ought to be withdrawn. Because I want to go to the Blewett case and the Blewett defence, let me just say that he did attack me. I am thick-skinned about these things, but I just want one of those who decided to attack me on the basis of my record as Secretary of the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council to stand up-and I now make the offer-and say what rorts they allege I got into. I have taken pride in conducting a public life of great integrity. Puplick accused me of rorts. I want to hear from Puplick what they were. They do not exist. I say to Puplick: Put up or shut up. Senator Short —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I really see no relevance between this part of the Minister's speech and the motion that is being debated. I ask you to call him to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —There is no point of order. The Minister is answering what was said previously in the debate. It is just as relevant as what has been said before. Senator Short —Perhaps the statement to which he was responding should have been called to order. But the fact that he might be responding to something, with great respect, would be irrelevant. What the Minister is now debating has nothing to do with the motion before the Chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Parer —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask you to call on Senator Cook to address Senator Puplick in the correct fashion. Senator COOK —I will address Senator Puplick in the correct fashion, Madam Acting Deputy President. However, I still ask him to put up or shut up. It is relevant, because he introduced it into the debate, not I. I am entitled to reply to it. I have now replied, and I will move on. There is more than just a smell of hypocrisy from members of the Opposition about this motion. There is more than just a smell of double standards in which they are dealing, too. While they make allegations against Minister Blewett, a man of absolute integrity, a man widely respected in Australia as a man of ethics, morality and integrity, where do they stand with Sinclair on the Asia Dairy issue? Where do they stand with Nixon on the meat substitution racket? Where do they stand with Durack on the inquiry of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union? On all those matters, which were much more serious, much more substantial, they did not apply the standards they now seek to apply to an honourable man. They did not apply these standards to their own kind. The hypocrisy and the double standards are well and truly answered. What did Dr Blewett do? Dr Blewett has answered that question in the Parliament. He has put a statement down in the chamber of the House of Representatives which says exactly what he did. Senator Bishop —He misled the Parliament. He evaded the question. Senator COOK —If the honourable senator keeps interjecting, I might just read it out. She obviously has not read it, is not familiar with the case and is interjecting out of ignorance. What Dr Blewett did was correct an error that had been made. That is the honest man's reaction to an error. That is the right and proper thing to do. There is nothing anywhere in the whole Westminster structure of government that says that, in circumstances such as that, anyone should resign. Senator Parer —The error is the provider number. Senator COOK —The day when Senator Parer commits no errors will be the day on which I give him the right to make that interjection. People do make errors. They are fallible. That is the nature of individuals. Senator Short —You are admitting an error by the Minister. You have just blown your case. Senator COOK —I have not just blown my case. I am paraphrasing what Minister Blewett has got in his statement. I stand absolutely foursquare on that statement and nothing that I say departs from it. But when these things occur the test of moral correctness is whether they are corrected or not. What did Blewett do? He came straight back and corrected it and, more than that, instituted an inquiry to find out what had happened. That is the action of a responsible person. Since a number of legal positions have been brandished around in this debate, let me say that I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has tabled in the House of Representatives the view of the Solicitor-General with respect to the issues under question. Senator Bishop —Looking after another first best friend. Senator COOK —Does the honourable senator not place any weight on the views of the Solicitor-General? Does she not believe in anything? If the Solicitor-General is not entitled to have a view about this, although he is the proper officer to be consulted, and if the honourable senator is not interested in it, all she is interested in is a witch hunt. I am interested in establishing the facts here. Let me now establish them. The Solicitor-General has offered the opinion that the Minister has breached the requirements of secrecy of the relevant provisions of section 130 of the Health Insurance Act, and that is inclusive of sections 1, 5 and 14. Wild allegations have been made in this debate that something unlawful or illegal was done by Minister Blewett, by his staff or by anyone else. The learned opinion of a distinguished lawyer-the Solicitor-General, no less-is that that is not the case. But do we hear any attempts to withdraw because of that? No, we do not. All we hear is an attempt to beat up this debate. I think that when the records of these censure motion debates-one occurred last night and there was another one today in the House of Representatives-are read, this matter will be shown to be nothing more than, frankly, a storm in a teacup. The statement that Minister Blewett put down answers all of the points. On the issue of confidentiality, what is clear is that Dr Blewett acted properly. Once he had discovered what had occurred, the inquiry was instituted. The opinion of the Solicitor-General on what has now occurred is such as to exonerate the participants. The material that was released to individuals was, to all intents and purposes, something that could not be deciphered and something of which intelligent use could not be made unless one had the key to what those figures meant. George Gear, the honourable member for Canning, is the person who had that information. He came forward straightaway and said quite clearly, honestly and openly in the Parliament as well as in the community-there was no question of his hiding behind privilege-that he had not given out that information, that he did not understand what the figures meant. As I am running out of time, if honourable senators want to hear the rest of George Gear's statement they should obtain a transcript of what was said this morning on the AM program. His whole demeanour in answering the questions put by the journalist was one of absolute surprise that in fact he had in his possession any information that was useful or intelligible or in fact information that was damaging to anyone at all. He went on to make the point that, as chairman of the price watch committee, a number of patients complained to him about doctors. Those patients gave him the names of the doctors they complained about. They produced to him file numbers. But on no occasion has he released the names of the doctors complained of by people who approached him as chairman of the price watch committee. He has observed commendable levels of public integrity. If I may summarise the case, in the end the situation comes down to the fact that the Opposition would dearly love-it is down on its bended knees praying-to have something on this Government. It has not. The idea that it has not has not yet dawned on it. It is loath to let go of the idea because it is such a seductive and attractive one. But if the Opposition goes through the record step by step it will realise that there is nothing there. That is its cause for regret. The bellow we hear from the Opposition benches is one of frustration. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(5.02) —I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. I shall vote against this motion but I wish to make clear why I propose to do so. I certainly agree with the sentiments of the motion as written. However, the motion has been used as a Dr Blewett bash, as we have all heard. I do not wish to support a bash. I do not have a brief for Dr Blewett either; I do not wish to defend or detract from Dr Blewett. It is just that I decry the predilection of people in this place and the other place for kicking heads rather than debating issues. Had some substantial contribution been made to a privacy debate, or had a privacy Bill been introduced or something like that, I would have been happy to vote for it. However, this has been nothing more than an attack on a person. I think it is a disgrace. Senator Knowles —It is a disgrace that you agree with what Blewett did. Senator WOOD —Senator Knowles is talking about things being a disgrace. I think it is a disgrace that people attack the person and not the office, and that people attack the person and not the issue. Senator Knowles —Someone has to be responsible for the office. Senator WOOD —I believe people have to be responsible, but the way to be responsible is to clearly debate the issues and to take clear and definitive action rather than indulge in the kicking of heads. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.04) —in reply-I rise to close the debate. I was interested to hear Senator Wood's words. I agree with some of his sentiments. However, I do not know where he has been during the debate. He seems to have got the bat by the wrong end or something. The truth of this matter is that those speaking in support of this motion have been repeatedly drawing attention to the fact that the current matter involving Dr Blewett is simply one of many examples-the latest example-of this Government's failure to protect privacy. My motion seeks to condemn the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. If Senator Wood had been listening to the debate he would have heard the Labor speakers-Senator Button and Senator Cook-do as they always do when the Labor Party is under attack, and that is to turn to personal abuse of those people in this chamber who have the audacity to put forward a proposition that one of their number has committed an offence against the parliamentary traditions; and that is the situation. Every time I raise any matter involving the administration of Senator Button's portfolio, he conducts some personal attack on me. He conducted a personal attack on one of the honourable senators on this side when he accused her of being a particular size. What relevance did that have to the debate? That is the sort of personal abuse to which Labor senators always degenerate whenever they get involved in this sort of debate. Senator Wood —Are you saying that your side does not descend to personal abuse? Senator LEWIS —The honourable senator can say that I am personally denigrating Labor senators. I am not pointing to them one by one; I am saying that as a rule during debates in this chamber when the Labor Party is under attack Labor senators turn to engaging in personal abuse of senators on this side of the chamber because we have the audacity to question something that the Government has done. Senator Button made two points in relation to me. He made an attack on me in relation to the Solicitor-General's opinion. He accused me of something which I deny. He also made an attack on me in relation to my allegedly constantly opposing wage rises. That is absolutely and totally irrelevant to the debate, and it is totally untrue. When I interjected to that effect, Senator Button then said that the Opposition always opposes wage rises. He said that because he knew that I had caught him out on his personal attack on me. Government senators directed personal abuse at honourable senators on this side of the chamber about their physical characteristics or their manner of speaking, but did not apply their minds to the subject matter of the debate. From Senator Cook we heard nothing but bluster and personal attacks on everyone of those who spoke in the debate from this side of the chamber. The only arguments we heard from Government senators in support of their colleague the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett-Senator Cook made this comment as the last speaker from the Government's side-was that the provider numbers protected the security of the doctor and the patient. In fact, the provider numbers are the means by which the doctors and the patients are identified. Senator Cook said that on the face of it when one looks at the number the first time one cannot tell those things. Of course, there is a code. It did not take Mr Gear very long to break the code. Senator Cook —He did not know the code. Senator LEWIS —Senator Cook interjects that Mr Gear did not know the code. Maybe he did not know the code, but it did not take him very long to break the code because he was able-- Senator Messner —Every time you get a doctor's bill it has the code on it. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Messner says, every time one receives a doctor's bill it has the provider number on it. That is the first thing that enables one to break the code. I come back to the point I was making. It did not take Mr Gear long to break the code in a certain respect, because he was able to go to New South Wales and claim that doctors in New South Wales were overcharging to the extent of some millions of dollars. So, in the first breakdown, he was very quickly able to identify New South Wales doctors. I presume that he also went to the other States. Senator Cook said something along the lines that all Mr Gear did was to point out that doctors in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory were overcharging by certain amounts of money. So he was immediately able to identify those doctors in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Cook —I raise a point of order. That is just absolutely wrong. I never said that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Order! No point of order is involved. Senator LEWIS —Anyone who examines the code and notices that doctors' provider numbers are being repeated is able to identify the doctors. It only requires the code to be leaked somewhere along the line for computer operators who want that information to have ready access to it. I think Senator McLean interjected to that effect at one stage. I say to Senator Cook, `Yes, on the face of it, one is unable to identify the number, but it is only one step down the track before one will be able to identify the doctors and the patients'. But, again, that is just one specific example. Let me also turn to the other defence which was taken by Senator Button of his colleague Dr Blewett. That was the claim that Dr Blewett was not personally responsible for the actions of his own staff within his own office. What a defence! When the Australian Labor Party was in opposition it claimed that Senator Durack, as the Attorney-General, was personally responsible because some officer of the Attorney-General's Department in an office in Perth, 3,000 miles away from Canberra, had in his bottom drawer a file which he had found too hard to handle, so he had sat on it for a number of years. Because that officer was sitting on this file for some time, the Australian Labor Party said that Senator Durack, as Attorney-General, was personally responsible for the actions of that officer and should have been sacked as Attorney-General. That was the standard which it wanted the Parliament to adopt when it was in opposition. Senator Haines —It looks different from the other side. Senator LEWIS —It is different now that the Labor Party is in government. The Government says that Dr Blewett is not personally responsible for the actions of his personal staff working in his own office in Canberra. What absolute nonsense! The Solicitor-General, in his report, makes what I believe to be an absolutely facetious point along the lines that Dr Blewett could not be responsible for doing this because he is not allowed to be responsible for it under the Act. He is not allowed to do it under the Act, so he could not be responsible for doing it under the Act. That is the sort of argument that the Solicitor-General has raised to try to get this Government off the hook in this particular case. Let me come back and just say, as I said before, that Senator Puplick, Senator Haines and I have pointed out altogether about nine or 10 occasions when confidential information about Australian citizens has been leaked by this Minister, by his staff, for whom he is personally responsible, or by officers of the Health Insurance Commission, which is a body operating within his responsibility. Therefore, on about nine or 10 occasions that the Opposition is able to identify, very close, important personal information has been leaked or released in some way either to newspapers or to the police, for instance about the women who had had terminations of their pregnancies and the prosecution of that doctor, all of which was confidential information. When will it stop? When will Dr Blewett and his staff and the Health Insurance Commission stop leaking this information? It is being leaked for crass political purposes. In this case it has been leaked to denigrate the medical profession. That is what it is all about-to denigrate the medical profession, in order to prop up this failing Medicare service. But there are other cases, and there have been other crass political reasons why the information has been leaked for some reason or other. That office over there leaks like a sieve and, as I said in my earlier remarks, that rotten apple in the barrel is making a number of us on the Opposition side wonder how one can accept anything that any Minister says in this Parliament. After all, if a Minister today in the course of a debate gives an undertaking that he will provide some information or he will do something, then it may very well be that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will change the portfolios tomorrow. If Dr Blewett is given responsibility for that portfolio, how could one rely on what would happen? One cannot rely on anything that Dr Blewett is saying or doing. The apple is rotten and the Prime Minister should be dealing with it. Again I come back to the personal situation of Dr Blewett because he is such a terrible example of what this Government has done to the privacy of the people of Australia. It is the Prime Minister's responsibility to pull Dr Blewett into line and sack him. But at least he should have been pulled into line some months ago. All of these matters should have been brought to his attention and he should have been told that the rights of the citizens of Australia to their privacy are absolutely utmost and must be contained within the confidential confines of the particular office within the Health Insurance Commission. The Opposition believes that the Government now is getting far too much information about the private concerns of the citizens of Australia-I draw attention to the wealth inquiry which the Government is about to conduct-and the Opposition is desperately concerned that the Government will not keep that information confidential. The Opposition is endeavouring to block the Government's opportunities of getting the information. It condemns the Government not about hypothetical cases but real instances where the Government has caused harm to individuals by failing to protect their privacy, and I move, as I have said, that the Government be condemned for its failure to so protect their privacy. Question put: That the motion (Senator Lewis's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. McLean, P. A.Baume, Michael Macklin, M. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J.H.Calvert, P. H. Parer, W. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Patterson, K. C. L.Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Puplick, C. J. G.Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Hamer, D. J. Stone, J. O.Hill, R. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Jenkins, J. A. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Beahan, M. E. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sibraa, K. W.Crowley, R. A. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Wood, W. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Sheil, G. Aulich, T. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Devereux, G. R.Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N.Bishop, B. K. Ray, RobertShort, J. R. Evans, Gareth Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the first report of 1988 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1987, Child Support Bill 1987, Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 1, dated 24 February 1988. Senator BURNS(Queensland) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the upgrade of Army living-in accommodation at various locations Australia-wide. I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the report. Leave granted. Senator BURNS —The bulk of the Royal Australian Army's living-in accommodation is well below the 1973 services' scales and standards. The proposal before the Committee was for upgrading to the current standards of some 118 accommodation buildings in various locations Australia-wide to provide 4,568 single bedrooms. I would like to place on record my appreciation of the non-partisan approach taken and the work done by the Committee and the Committee staff in bringing this report forward as early as possible. Although Defence does not have specific evidence relating standards of accommodation to morale and wastage rates, a 1986 soldier attitude opinion survey showed that 61 per cent were less than satisfied with their living-in accommodation. The Committee is of the view that the upgrading of accommodation will help to improve soldier attitudes. To see the standard of accommodation was to want to carry out these changes. Whilst the Committee appreciates that it is difficult for the construction period to be shortened, it believes that every means should be taken to ensure completion of the program on time. The Committee intends to monitor closely the progress of these works. I commend the work to the House. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate requesting changes in the membership of various committees. Motion (by Senator Richardson)-by leave agreed to: (1) That Senator Cook be discharged from further attendance on the House Committee and that Senator Zakharov be appointed a member of the Committee. (2) That Senator Gietzelt be discharged from further attendance on the Library Committee and that Senator Giles be appointed a member of the Committee. (3) That Senator Childs be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee of Privileges and that Senator Giles be appointed a member of the Committee. (4) That Senator Cook be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and that Senator McMullan, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, be appointed a member of the Committee. (5) That Senator Cook be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Industry, Technology and Commerce and that Senator Devereux, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, be appointed a member of the Committee. (6) That Senator Bolkus be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and that Senator Collins, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, be appointed a member of the Committee. (7) That Senator Devereux be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure and that Senator McMullan, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, be appointed a member of the Committee. (8) That Senators Gietzelt and Teague be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and that Senators McMullan and Patterson, having been duly nominated pursuant to Sessional Order, be appointed members of the Committee. (9) That Senator Morris, having been duly nominated pursuant to Resolution of 9 October 1987, be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. (10) That Senator Bolkus be discharged from further attendance on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and that Senator Childs, having been duly nominated pursuant to Resolution of 9 October 1987, be appointed a member of the Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Powell, proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need for the Government to ensure the survival of the ABC as an independent national broadcasting service, separate from SBS, and free from corporate or government interference, by providing adequate and long-term financial support; and the need for the Government to acknowledge that the ABC's role is more important now than it has ever been because of the dramatic concentration of the ownership of all sectors of the Australian media over the last 2 years. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.28) —There could scarcely be a matter of greater public importance at this time in Australia's history and more in the interests of Australia's democracy than the subject matter of this matter of public importance. Let me make it clear, however, that what I am talking about today is an independent Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). What the Australian Democrats are interested in is preserving the quality and integrity of our national broadcaster in the interests of the community. We are not involved in a campaign which is based on the ABC's own corporate interests. That is a very important point to make at the beginning of this debate. I draw the attention of the Senate to the statement of purpose which appears at the very beginning of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's fourth annual report which was tabled in this Parliament last week and which, because of various reasons, has not had as yet an adequate airing in this chamber. The statement of purpose begins: As Australia's national broadcaster and major cultural organisation, the central objective of the ABC is to extend the range of ideas and experiences available to Australians and contribute to the development of values within the community and a sense of national purpose and identity. Following that general statement a range of specifics is outlined. I would like to refer to a few of them. The report states that the ABC will strive to be a valued and vital part of Australian life, that it will explore major contemporary social, economic and political issues as well as developments in science, technology, education, philosophy and religion, that it will maintain its integrity and independence and strive for leadership in the Australian broadcasting system in the provision of high quality, innovative services and provide Australians with the best and most reliable coverage and analysis of events in Australia and abroad. There are other points in the statement of purpose but I think those particular points are worth reiterating at this time. Where is the ABC at this time in relation to its ability to carry out those aims and objectives and to achieve its purpose as stated? Perhaps the trigger for the concern which is now being expressed in the Senate today and in the wider community was the becoming public of the proposal of the Department of Finance to cut the funding of the ABC this year by a further $19m. We then got into the annual brawl with the razor gang-I might say that governments of either colour have razor gangs-which the ABC has to undergo every year. Over the past two years the funding for the ABC has dropped by close to $50m. This annual brawl has now become a twice-yearly exercise as we are faced every year with mini-Budgets and maxi-Budgets. It is a very debilitating exercise for our national broadcaster, for an organisation which has the goals and the responsibilities which the ABC has. The Australian Democrats have called for long-term funding for the ABC. We believe the ABC should be funded on a five-year basis so that it can plan ahead. That is essential. I point out that, even under the current unsatisfactory situation with the annual brawl with razor gangs, the ABC is doing a good job. Australians are getting a better deal for their ABC dollar. In the past year staffing levels have been reduced by 8 per cent, yet television transmission hours have increased by 12 per cent, Australian content on television has increased by 5 per cent and television repeats have been reduced by 6 per cent. The ABC has transferred $6m from salaries and expenses to fund a 300 per cent increase in ABC-made drama. The goal, which looks like being achieved, is 100 hours of ABC produced drama by the end of 1988. The increased activity in Australian drama content is important in relation to the problems the Australian film industry is experiencing. As this activity is increased and encouraged, that will be of advantage to the beleaguered Australian film industry. The ABC has generally maintained its on-air services despite this 5 per cent real cut in funding. I highlight that the ABC has the highest rating for children's viewing. This is not surprising: there is a long and fine tradition of programming on the ABC for children of all ages and that is improving all the time. Many honourable senators, and perhaps even listeners, will not know that the television program Behind the News, which is shown during the day, has between one million and two million viewers each week. It is a highly valued program, particularly in the schools. In my own family I have found that it has been of great benefit in interesting young primary school children in what is going on in their world. Without such ABC programs we would all be the poorer. There is considerable choice and diversity in prime time programming on the ABC. In the 6 to 10 p.m. slot the ABC puts on a range of programming: 34 per cent of drama of a range of varieties; 37 per cent of news, current affairs and documentaries; 10 per cent of arts, information and religious programs; and 12 per cent of light entertainment. If we compare that spread with what appears on commercial television stations during that prime time period we see that 55 per cent of commercial television is taken up with drama; 30 per cent with news; 0.5 per cent with arts and information; and 5.5 per cent with light entertainment. That demonstrates the diversity of programming provided to Australian television viewers by the ABC in spite of its straitened circumstances and the uncertainties of annual budgeting which it faces. The ABC also has a clear record in other areas. I have mentioned children's programming in terms of its viewing audience; in terms of time, 23.5 per cent of the total transmission time is children's programming. On the commercial stations the figure is 15 per cent. In education, arts and religious programming the ABC figure is 22.6 per cent of time, compared with 2.5 per cent on the commercial stations, and they show no education programs at all. Twelve per cent of ABC transmissions are drama programs compared with 40 per cent on the commercial stations. So obviously the ABC offers programming on television in an area which is not provided by the commercial stations. Of course that is one of the major features and major expectations of the ABC by its supporters in the community, its viewers and its listeners. The ABC also breaks new ground in programming. It is often in the forefront. Many of the new programs of the ABC are taken up by the commercial stations. The excellent Towards 2000 program, the Gillies Report, Mother and Son, A Big Country and so on are just some of them. It is interesting to note that even in quiz programs a different approach is taken. ABC quiz programs do not rely on big prizes, big money or any of those gimmicks for their appeal, and their appeal is often considerable. Perhaps most of my emphasis has been on television: let us not forget radio. Radio National, as we know, has a very dedicated and devoted audience. Senator McKiernan —That was before Parliament. Senator POWELL —Or it had before the parliamentary broadcasts were imposed upon it. ABC FM and the metropolitan and regional radio stations all provide strong news and information bases and programming of specialist kinds for specialist audiences. All this has been provided, as I said, in the current climate where there is the knife edge of annual funding. Another reason for long term funding is that it would provide the ABC with an increased ability to be genuinely independent of any government or managerial editorial influence. I shall give an instance to point out what I mean by this. All over Australia now, particularly since we have had a Federal Labor government and State Labor governments, there are groups whose role one would expect would be to analyse and criticise government performance in their interest area and on behalf of a specific clientele. Such groups are now very often receiving funding from government. In most instances the Australian Democrats would support that. But one of the unfortunate consequences of this type of annual funding can be, it seems to me, that often such organisations feel themselves hamstrung in their purpose of critique and analysis of government action and policies by that funding structure, especially approaching Budget time when sometimes the silence is practically deafening. I sympathise with such organisations but it is a problem and can be a problem and I think it must definitely be removed from our national broadcaster from which we expect independence and integrity. Given the critical importance of the ABC as an independent voice and its own statement of purpose with which I began this speech, it is important that the ABC does not have to run repeatedly to government cap in hand and feel itself constrained or pressured in any way in terms of that very independence which in general terms most people would agree we want to sustain at all costs. The question of achieving increased funding for the ABC has arisen, and proposals for advertising or corporate sponsorship have been floated. I suppose that we must look at those proposals and answer the question: Why not? I will be interested, in the course of this debate, to see whether we can ascertain the position of the Opposition in this matter. I have looked at the comments that Senator Messner made in addressing the ABC annual report. He has called on the Government to make a firm statement with regard to these options. I certainly endorse that call. Senator Messner, however, also said, `There are many options'. I suggest that we must close off the option of advertising or sponsorship for the ABC. We need to give the ABC adequate and long term funding so that it can carry out its role with some security and with considerable support. I move to another Liberal Party voice on this issue. Mr Ian Macphee has pointed out to us this week, in an article in the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday, that in his view there is no way that the Government would now contemplate a gold tax, given Mr Alan Bond's extensive media holdings. I contend that that applies not just to this Government but also to the Liberal Party. Mr Bond owns a significant television network. Let us imagine this situation applied to the ABC and that the ABC has to undertake sponsorship in quarantined areas, specific areas, such as its orchestras. If the Benson and Hedges company sponsored the ABC orchestras, would the ABC then hesitate to screen a non-sponsored, hard-hitting anti-smoking documentary? We really must address this issue. We must recognise that it is not possible to quarantine areas of an integrated operation such as this; that the core areas and the non-core areas are, and will remain, inextricably linked. I think the Public Broadcasting Service in the United States of America provides a salutary lesson in this regard. It is a fact of life that whoever holds the purse strings holds the power. This is why the Australian Democrats are disturbed by the proposals for sponsorship of the ABC. It is also, incidentally, why the Democrats are disturbed by the ALP accepting $10,000 from Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd. As I said, whoever holds the purse strings holds the power. Commercial stations have to please the majority and, to the extent that the ABC became a commercial operator, it would be forced more and more to please the majority. Commercial operations cannot cater for a minority market. That is accepted. Special interest groups would lose out in the event that the ABC was in any way dependent upon sponsorship of any kind. At the moment special interests can be met on the ABC in a fairly random way. We can move from a program on consumer protection to one on jazz to one for antique lovers. It is the case that we will not get all Australians, or even the majority of Australians, listening to or watching the ABC at once, but at some time there will be something there for all Australians. On an extremely practical note, the question of sponsorship, of advertising, for the ABC must also take into account the question of the advertising dollar. It is interesting that the television networks were reported in the Australian Financial Review this morning to be very concerned about this, and they should be. As all of the evidence has shown, the advertising dollar is static. This was identified during the deliberations of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation. It is clear that a very flat plateau has been reached and that it will be very difficult for large sums of money to be gathered, particularly for the ABC which, as I have said, does not appeal to a majority audience and ratings not having been a significant factor, therefore, in the past. In a practical way, this question of sponsorship for the ABC raises its own problems. It is certainly not a way out. As I said, there are other ways out which should be taken. The matter of public importance that we have raised here today goes on to emphasise the fact that an ABC which is independent and which can maintain its integrity is even more important now than it has ever been. We have experienced over the last couple of years, and are still experiencing, quite dramatic contractions in the ownership of all aspects of our media. Over 60 per cent of our newspapers are owned by one proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, in one way or another, and success for the current Maxwell bid would tie up the vast majority of our newspapers in the hands of overseas interests. It is disturbing to see that the entrenched views of Mr Keating are firm against any action to prevent that sort of overseas ownership. We have three commercial television networks. The commercial television world is now divided into three blocks. Kerry Packer has a virtual monopoly in the magazine area, especially that of women's magazines. It is interesting to note that just recently in France the Pearson group takeover of a major newspaper has been refused on the ground that Murdoch, a non-European, owns a significant share of that company-above 20 per cent at this point. There are also fewer newspapers in Australia. Two major newspapers have gone and another one is on the slide in Sydney; so the choice is narrowed even further. The ABC is important, and it does have its burdens. One of those burdens is its annual battle with government. I have suggested a way out of that. Another burden is the need for it to cater to all minority interests. A further burden is the parliamentary broadcast in respect of which it has a statutory need to fulfil. We believe that there should be a separate network for that. While the current ABC campaign is emphasising its independence, quite rightly and of necessity, given the threat to its continuation as an independent voice, this does not mean that significant structural changes are not needed. But we cannot expect everything in the face of the instability of annual funding and funding cuts, actual and threatened. As I stated in my letter to the President, it is more crucial now than ever, in the face of media concentration, for the ABC to remain a quality broadcaster of integrity and independence. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(5.48) —The matter of public importance that we are debating today concerning the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is timely in some respects and not so timely in others. It is timely because tonight a meeting is to be held at the Sydney Town Hall, ostensibly organised by the New South Wales Advisory Council of the ABC and the Friends of the ABC. At that meeting a number of speakers-many of them people of some prominence in our community-will outline their concerns and tell us why more should be done for the ABC and why the Government should improve its contribution. However, the fundamental problem with the meeting that is to be held tonight I think characterises the difficulty in the debate that has been carried on in recent weeks about ABC funding. The claim that the meeting is being organised by the New South Wales Advisory Council of the ABC and the Friends of the ABC simply is not true. It has been made to give the impression that ABC management is at least at arm's length from this meeting. But today I received some information which I think gives the lie to this. Huw Evans, who has been very prominent on the ABC, even on the quiz shows that Senator Powell mentioned, was telephoned and asked whether he would accept an invitation to speak at this meeting. He was asked by a person from ABC corporate affairs-hardly at arm's length from ABC management. Mr Evans replied that he was happy to speak at the meeting but he would have to exercise his right to offer some criticisms of the ABC. The person replied that that was fine with the ABC, and that was the end of the conversation. However, that person rang back the next day to say that the invitation had been withdrawn, the difficulty being that ABC management, which is very happy to have this debate conducted in the public arena, was not happy at all for anyone to be given an opportunity to go to the meeting tonight and perhaps put a contrary view. No matter how minor the differences might have been, ABC management was determined to keep hold of the reins, to make sure that no other point of view could be put. Later in my contribution I shall outline another example of that. As I said, Senator Powell's motion is in that respect at least timely. It is timed to coincide with the campaign. But where it is not timely, where it is premature, is that it is widely known-it is hardly a great secret-that Senator Gareth Evans, the responsible Minister, will be releasing a major series of discussion papers on Friday of this week. Those discussion papers will go to the heart of the issues that Senator Powell has raised today and other issues concerning the ABC. The very reason that Senator Evans is not here today speaking in this debate is that he is presently in Sydney discussing these issues with the boards of the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). The difficulty we have is that it is just not going to be possible, in a debate like this, the pre-empt the release of those papers. Therefore I would have thought that to interrupt the discussions that Senator Evans is having today is something we could not do, and that is why I had hoped that Senator Powell could have waited a little longer. Nonetheless, I want to say on behalf of the Government that we remain committed to a strong national broadcasting sector. The discussion papers that will be released on Friday are squarely aimed at precisely what this matter of public importance calls for-ensuring the long term viability of an independent, vibrant, relevant and viable ABC. There is no question of any assault of the kind which has been suggested. The Government is trying to concentrate on what it is that makes the ABC the institution that is worth funding. We are concentrating on what the ABC's objectives are. We are focusing on what the objectives should be. It would seem to me, from speaking to many people at the ABC, that that is a concern not only of the Government but also of many people at the ABC itself. We are talking about the pursuit of excellence and the setting, not the following, of standards, and the filling of gaps so that we can cater for special minorities that might otherwise not be catered for. We are also not catering, one hopes, just for an intellectual elite, but rather making sure that there are programs for all of the people at least some of the time. Having identified what the special characteristics of the ABC might be, the Government now wants to work out a way of guaranteeing funding for the future so that we are not confronted with this annual sordid haggle over the ABC's budgetary position. Instead, the Government wants certainty, it wants some planning and integrity put into the Budget process, so that not only does the Government know where the ABC is going, but the ABC itself will get some idea. Senator Evans has deliberately refrained over the last few weeks and months from responding in detail to the barrage of rumours that we have heard, many of them, I might say, distortions of the future of the ABC and the SBS. I think he has corrected some erroneous financial assertions that have been made, but otherwise he has been happy to let all those distortions lie on the table because he and the Government propose that these matters should be exhaustively debated once those papers have been released. That process will go on for some time. There will be no decision on the future of the ABC until after there has been a proper period of consultation, debate and discussion not just with the ABC but with the community at large. Senator Messner —So they are not policy statements at all. Senator RICHARDSON —They are issues papers; they will canvass the issues. The Government is not proposing to set the policy by the issuing of the papers, rather to put down a framework for the debate. There is no Government proposal to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS. That is not a highly original statement. I thought the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had made it clear that this would never happen unless there was agreement with the ethnic communities. Whilst I have not checked with the ethnic communities in recent times, given the pretty obvious expressions of discontent and dislike for that proposal when it was first mooted some time back, I would think that the Prime Minister's promise, as indeed with all of his promises, holds firm. There will be no amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS. There has been much talk recently about the ABC suffering death by a thousand cuts. We have heard all about these slashes in the forward estimates. I only wish that some people would look at the forward estimates of my Department. There would be a few people crying there as well. It is worth noting, if we want to put some factual basis to this debate, that as a proportion of total Budget outlays the 1987-88 appropriation of $430.4m-and that excludes approximately $70m which was a cost to the Government of installing and maintaining ABC transmitters-was 0.55 per cent. That is slightly above the average level of funding for the ABC for the past decade, which has been 0.549 per cent. ABC funding has grown substantially-by 10.7 per cent in real terms-during the five years of the Hawke Government. The Hawke Government has nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to funding for the ABC. To the extent that the ABC's overall funding position has declined, and I might say only by a fraction in the last two years, it should be remembered that there has been considerable pressure on the budgets of all publicly funded bodies, and all Ministers know well the extent of that pressure. The slight real decrease in ABC appropriations since 1985-86 is primarily due to the fact that during 1985-86 there were some extraordinary and large capital items. They included $18.4m for satellite transponder leasing, $10.5m for plant and equipment associated with the second regional radio network and satellite facilities, and $10.9m for property initiatives. So we cannot use 1985-86 as a base year; it simply was not. There were all of these extra capital items in the ABC's budget of that year. The ABC in fact has not fared badly at all, particularly if one takes it in the context of the discipline that has been extended over the whole of the Government as far as spending goes in recent years. As to Mr Hill's claim that the Department of Finance forward estimates show that the Government intends to slash the ABC budget by $19m this year, and that this has been recommended by the Department of Finance, I think we should understand that all that forward estimates represent is nothing more than a statement of the existing financial position applying certain mechanical financial rules. They are not necessarily a reliable guide to the eventual outcome. Approximately $16m of the forward estimates reduction represents the completion of ABC capital projects. As with any publicly funded body, appropriations are not made to cover projects which no longer exist. New capital appropriations will no doubt be sought to replace those I have just mentioned, the completed projects. There is no reason to assume that the Expenditure Review Committee (ERC) or the Cabinet will not in the end support at least some of those. It is not possible to say now how many, but quite obviously Senator Evans will be going forward with submissions to have more capital projects funded in the Budget. I have no doubt, given the eloquence and persuasiveness of his arguments, as is so often seen by all honourable senators in this place, that he will be successful. Only $2.8m of the forward estimates figures pertain to the ABC's operational and administrative expenses. That figure represents 0.7 per cent of the total budget. Again, it cannot be assumed that that will be the final outcome. The Budget process has only just begun. I think that the ERC has only begun to meet in the last few days, so we are a long way from seeing what final decisions might be made. I think we should have a bit of patience. The Government does not want to see the ABC shrink. We will continue to support it. The ABC will not have any difficulty in persuading the rest of the Government about funding if it can demonstrate to the public that the public gets value for its money. If the ABC can produce programming excellence, professional broadcasting, authoritative news and current affairs and no shoddy or tacky programs, it will have no trouble in persuading the community that $500m worth of its hard earned tax money is being well spent. There has been no trouble or little trouble in persuading the community in the past. I have no doubt that that will be the position in the future. Senator Evans has already made it clear to the Chairman and to the Managing Director of the ABC that he is quite prepared to go in to bat for them in the forthcoming Budget process, both in respect of any new capital projects they might want and in respect of recurrent funding. Knowing the vigour with which he pursues those promises, I have no doubt that he will be successful. Mr Hill has been running a campaign that the Government has been secretly planning an attack on the ABC. On 22 February 1988 David Hill said: The consideration of various options by the Department of Transport and Communications was conducted in secret and that is very troubling. Senator Evans offered the ABC the opportunity to have an officer seconded full time to the departmental review process. That offer was declined last September. It is pretty rich for David Hill or anyone else to whinge about a secret process when they were invited into its very heart, into its bosom, and they declined the opportunity. The Chairman, Mr Somervaille, confirmed that in writing to Senator Evans. There has been no attempt to keep the ABC out of the process. On the question of advertising, about which Senator Powell spoke at quite some length, Senator Evans has made it clear that it is not, and never has been, his view that the ABC should be dependent on advertising or corporate sponsorship for any of its mainstream activities. It is the Government's and the Parliament's responsibility to fund those mainstream activities. The Government has not walked, and will not walk, away from it. The Government has no specific policy proposals for advertising for any non-mainstream functions, but no doubt it would be prepared to consider any such proposals that might come from the ABC. I am disappointed at the campaign that has been waged by ABC management and the ABC Board on this question. I hope that the release of the discussion papers this Friday will bring an end to some of the paranoia about the Government's secret attacks and people will see that the Government is serious about maintaining a viable and independent ABC. I would like to turn to the second part of the text of Senator Powell's matter of public importance which refers to the concentration of media ownership and the allegation that there has been a dramatic concentration. The central thrust of the Government's initiatives in media ownership has been to reduce the concentration. It has been more than successful. Senator Powell —I am not arguing with you about that. Senator RICHARDSON —It was not long ago that those who owned newspapers could also hold significant television and radio interests in the same cities. Senator Powell says that she is not worried about that. I would have thought that, when it comes to looking at say, the Fairfax organisation in Sydney-- Senator Powell —Madam Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The Minister said that I interjected to say that I was not concerned about cross-media ownership. What I said was that-- Senator McKiernan —On a point of order; if the honourable senator is claiming to be misrepresented, the appropriate time to claim that misrepresentation is at the conclusion of the debate and not during it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —I was about to point that out. Senator RICHARDSON —If I have misheard the honourable senator and done her an injustice, I apologise. However, I would have thought that there should have been sufficient concern about, for example, the Fairfax organisation being able to own, in Sydney and Melbourne, newspapers and television stations plus a plethora of radio stations, so that all of the media arms were owned by the one person. I would have thought that any government that could introduce a system that did away with that ought to be praised rather than criticised. The reality is that that situation had existed ever since television was introduced. The developments in communications over the last 30 years have been so great that it was well and truly time for a change. That is what we have done. The strict cross-ownership rules embracing newspapers, television and radio are unprecedented. They have wide support throughout the community and the Government stands by them. If anything, we will improve them and make them better. In essence, there used to be only four major Australian media players-that is, News Ltd, Fairfax, Packer and the Herald and Weekly Times-which dominated newspapers, radio and television. There are now nine major players. That increase from four to nine hardly represents more concentration. In newspapers there is Fairfax and News Ltd, as well as a number of smaller owners. In television there is Northern Star Holdings Ltd, Qintex Ltd and the Bond Corporation. They control the major metropolitan networks. I suppose one could also say that the Ramsay group now controls a significant number of the regional stations. As well as that, who knows how many owners of the radio stations there are. I would have thought that, once again, the figures demonstrate just how serious the Government has been in its commitment. The rationalisation of commercial broadcasting ownership, produced by the reform package, prevents any owner from holding more than one licence in a market. Time and time again the Government has demonstrated its commitment and the runs are on the board in so far as legislation in this place is concerned. The former two-station rule in television-which had become such a farce that it equated two stations in, say, Kalgoorlie and Rockhampton with two stations in Sydney and Melbourne-was long overdue for change. The Government moved, and moved swiftly. In summary, the Government will continue to support the ABC rather than attack it. We want to make sure, however, that it has a defined role with which the ABC, the community and, obviously, the Government will be happy. We want to make sure it remains viable, independent and relevant. In so far as media concentration is concerned, the Government's record is excellent. We propose to continue working in the same directions. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.08) —The Liberal and National parties welcome the opportunity to discuss the future of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). We seldom have the opportunity to discuss issues in this kind of depth. However, I am terribly disappointed at the way in which the Australian Democrats have chosen to phrase this proposal that is before us today. They have spoken of little more than motherhood-type things and certainly give us no real indication of their own thinking as to how they might seek to solve the very significant problems which the ABC faces. Quite clearly, Senator Powell abdicated her responsibility in this regard in the course of her remarks. She found no positive things to say about how funding might be reorganised or rearranged to justify her conclusion that inadequate funding is being made available. I would like to hear her solutions, but it seems that we will wait a long time for that to occur. In my opening remarks I note with a great deal of disappointment-I am sure it will be a disappointment as far as the rest of the community is concerned too-that we now learn that the much-awaited statements and papers to be brought down by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) on Friday with respect to the future funding of the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service are nothing more than discussion papers. In fact, the Government has no firm policy, apparently, as to what it intends in this area. That means that in the period leading up to the Budget we will be wallowing in cross-currents of various ideas, suggestions and what have you-all of which, I might add, are well-known in the community already and are being discussed widely. But those ideas and suggestions will not be positive decisions of the Government and consequently the people who are trying to manage the ABC will be in no better position to know what the future holds for them than they are at the current time. I want to make the Liberal and National parties' position on the future of the ABC absolutely clear. We are committed to the maintenance of an independent organisation that provides quality and reliable services for what might be regarded as minority groups in the community. There is no doubt that the ABC has provided in the past a great deal of service to those living in remote areas, to those interested in the arts and to those who receive from the ABC information in such a form as to provide, for example, educational opportunities. Of course we know of the ABC's maintenance of the great institutions such as the symphony orchestras in the various cities which tour around the whole country to provide musical entertainment for the whole of the Australian community. We also know of the great commitment to Radio Australia, which is a vital outward-reaching instrument for Australia's foreign development and the gaining of a better Australian image in the world. We hear everywhere we travel overseas of the way in which Radio Australia is received and how well regarded it really is. Certainly that commitment I have just expressed is backed up by the past record of Liberal-National Party governments. We ensured that adequate funding was made available to the ABC when we were in government. It is timely, though, to relate the total expenditure of the ABC to the expenditure of the commercial broadcasters. A pattern emerges which shows a very significant change. The expenditure of the ABC, for both radio and television, was equivalent in 1979-80 to 33.5 per cent of the expenditure of the commercial operators, but in 1987-88 that figure dropped to 26.4 per cent. It is projected that that figure will drop even further in the next three or four years, so that by 1991 it will reach 17 per cent-roughly half the figure of a decade earlier. That is significant. It indicates that there is a crisis in ABC funding because, relative to the expenditure of other broadcasters, it is falling behind. Some solution, apart from the traditional ones, has to be found. We know that the ABC is trying. We have seen Mr Hill on television debating with the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) the things that have been undertaken, and we recall that he has pointed out that staff numbers have been reduced by 600. We note also that many staff have been put onto contracts, and that must be a step forward. We know, too, that there have been changes in the way in which certain people employed by the ABC in specialist capacities have been put onto longer run contracts. I think those things augur well for a more flexible future for the ABC, so that there will be better opportunities for reorganising staff and making sure that the Corporation's capacity to move with the times is kept up to its optimum level. Quite clearly, that is necessary in the light of the figures I have just read out which show that the ABC is falling behind the commercial operators. We note, too, that the ABC is committed to doing certain things which commercial operators do not have to do. For instance, 23.5 per cent of the ABC's total transmission time is devoted to children's programming, compared with the figure for commercial operators of only 15 per cent. We find, too, that 22.6 per cent of the ABC's time goes on religious, education and arts programs, compared with the 2.5 per cent of the commercial networks. These community obligations which the ABC is forced to undertake are of great importance to the future of Australian culture. I suppose that one of the most significant things occurring as far as the ABC is concerned is that in the latest financial year there has been a big increase in the amount of time, and therefore money, being committed by the ABC to Australian-made drama. That is now up to about 100 hours a year, and it has roughly trebled in the last year or two. That is surely a significant leap forward. That, by the way, compares with the obligation imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on commercial networks to devote some 104 hours per year to this purpose. So the ABC is indeed competing well on those grounds. Perhaps the area in which changes are occurring most-and it is an area which gives many supporters of the Liberal and National parties cause for a great deal of concern-is the area of public affairs and news generally. That area has always been of great interest to the bulk of Australian people. The ABC has come to be relied upon as a great source of independent information. Yet in recent times political forces-both from the Left and perhaps some might say also the Right, particularly the right wing of the Labour Party in New South Wales-have caused us to worry about the independence of the ABC's programming. I believe these things must be addressed by the Commonwealth Government as part of the discussion process now to be undertaken. We note, too, that the ABC has lost a number of its public affairs presenters and compilers to the commercial networks. We should observe that this cuts both ways. It means the ABC suffers from the loss of personnel in this area, but the commercial operators gain. Contrary to what Senator Powell asserted in the terms of her matter of public importance, that this concentration is leading to some kind of fixed view of the world being presented by commercial operators, it seems to me that the seeding of people from the ABC into commercial public affairs operation will work in reverse-it may well improve the standards of the commercial operators' public affairs programs. I know from my own contacts with commercial television operators that they are indeed spending a great deal of time and money committing themselves to new public affairs formats which will employ new talent and people who have come from other parts of the industry. That alone puts the lie to Senator Powell's suggestions that somehow our whole television and radio world is falling into a pit from which we will never be able to drag it. I believe the opposite is true: we are now seeing a brave new world develop in which the ABC itself will be forced into a position of involving itself in greater competition. I think that augurs well for all of us, particularly the ABC, in making sure that its programs do maintain that true independence in the political arena which we have been worrying about now for some time. I believe that Senator Richardson, in his remarks, has done us a disservice in that he has not got his figures right in all circumstances. For instance, he spoke about the cuts in expenditure and of capital commitments, particularly mentioning the transponders on the satellites. That is not a one off thing. The fact is that it is an ongoing expense. It is not something that is suddenly just wiped off the cost structure of the ABC. That is an incorrect statement for him to rely on. But the big problem that the ABC faces and where the future threat to it lies is the fact that it already has a shortage of $120m of capital expenditure for its maintenance program just to upgrade obsolete equipment. That is without looking more broadly at the expansion of ABC networks or of new services that might be introduced. If we take that figure into account the capital demand for the ABC in the future is something like $400m. That is where the real problem lies in the future. I hope the Government will be in a position to help us understand this problem better as a result of the release of the discussion papers on Friday. Senator Powell has spoken at some length about her problems with the ideas of advertising, both for SBS and for the ABC. It remains to be seen exactly what the Government is suggesting in this regard. We have certainly seen some leaks in the newspapers in recent days that lead us to conclude that this is about to happen. However, we have to wait and see whether they are the suggestions which will emanate from the Government. I believe that there is some room for movement in regard to corporate sponsorship, the orchestras and some phases of the operations of the ABC. They are things that we ought to be examining if we have an eye to the future. Those things should not be dropped on the sidelines. However, it is election time in New South Wales. These things are likely to raise their heads in the weeks and months ahead. We read back in September in the Times on Sunday that the Government had not given up the idea of merger of the ABC with the SBS which it denied with great haste before the July election. That must still be on the agenda. Nevertheless, because it is election time we find that Barrie Unsworth is pleading with Hawke not to proceed with any merger of the SBS with the ABC and, consequently, we can see that becoming an issue during the election campaign in the next few days. I reiterate that the Liberal and National parties are committed to an independent radio and television network to be operated by the ABC. We want to see those services improve. We believe that there is an exciting future for the ABC. We want to be part of it and we want to encourage it. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(6.24) —I would like to pick up a sense which I gathered from Senator Richardson lay behind his early remarks; that is a sense of support for the corporate managers of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). I do not think Senator Powell's matter of public importance in any way suggests that that is really what the Australian Democrats are on about. We are on about protecting the ABC as that body perceived by the very large number of Australians who enjoy, listen to and watch the ABC. Thousands of people have turned out over recent years for meetings on the ABC. I point out to Senator Richardson that at the meeting in Queensland, no matter who organised the meeting, some 2,000 people turned up. The perception that those people have of the ABC is of an organisation that provides high quality programs in a wide range of areas which are not being provided by any other medium in Australia at this time. We are certainly not supporting the corporate structure of the ABC however it might be behaving in helping to organise the venues and other details of these meetings. We are supporting people such as Andrew Olle, Huw Evans-whom Senator Richardson has already mentioned-Matt Peacock, Robyn Williams, Norman Swan, Wendy Bacon, Caroline Jones and John Pilger. They are people who have been prepared to stand up and be counted on a very wide range of issues and, very often, against the forces of internal management. I would like to mention one aspect which bore this out and that was the interview between the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and John Pilger last year on the ABC. In my view John Pilger asked the Prime Minister a number of relevant and important questions. Not only did he not get proper answers, he got a very poor response from both the Prime Minister and from ABC management. Senator Schacht —He admitted that he edited the answers. Senator COULTER —The answers which were given were relevant to the information which was not being given by the other media in Australia. Senator Richardson —In the highly unlikely event that anyone ever interviews you, you will find it is not nice when they edit the answers. Senator COULTER —That has happened to me very often by the commercial media because they do not like some of the things that I say. I will get on to that in a minute. The importance of the ABC lies very largely in the preservation of freedom in this country. We live in an information age; we live in an age in which the possession and control of the flow of information is vital to the protection of freedom. We also live in an age-I will pick up on what Senator Messner was saying about corporate sponsorship here-in which what passes for information, namely, large amounts of what goes by in the commercial media and what goes by in the form of advertising, swamps that which is vital and which really matters and it is very hard for the ordinary citizen to pick up what is relevant and what is important for him and for her. The ABC, by not being involved in this form of dilution-in which the commercial media are involved, plays a very important role. I would like briefly to mention some of the really excellent programs which the ABC runs. All honourable senators would be aware of them, but I think it is interesting when one makes a list of them to see just how much we have come to rely on the ABC. The ABC's Science Unit is generally recognised around the world as the most important public radio science unit. Senator Schacht —I reckon Rock Arena is better. Senator COULTER —The honourable senator may well do. It is a very interesting remark that he regards Rock Arena as more important than the function of the ABC Science Unit. I hope that those people who listen to the rest of this debate will take that into account when they hear whatever silly remarks the honourable senator will continue to make during this debate. The Science Unit has, for years, run the Science Show with Robyn Williams. Again one of the very best and highest quality science broadcasters in the world and generally recognised as such. Occam's Razor, for example, has been running for a number of years and there are programs such as Quantum and Earthworm. The Opposition would be interested to know that recently Peter Hunt ran a program which exposed the way in which the Labor Government in Western Australia had suppressed very important and very relevant environmental information because it was information that that Government did not want to hear. These are the sorts of things that the ABC has been doing. In the rural and general area there are programs such as Countrywide and the Country Hour on radio. In the consumer area, the ABC has The Investigators, which is the sort of program that one does not see and would not see on commercial television. I refer also to The Women's Program. I am sorry that Senator Stone is not in the chamber to hear me say that I support The Coming Out Show. I think it has played an extremely useful part in raising issues that are relevant to women and in drawing attention to the way in which women and people generally in our society have functioned and may function under different conditions. I refer to the overseas news and in-depth analysis programs such as Indian Pacific and The Europeans that we have seen in recent years. The ABC's literature programs include The Science Bookshop and First Edition which deal with the publication of new books. Often I have picked up a publication that has been discussed on those programs before I have seen it in the bookshops. I refer to the serious drama programs screened by the ABC-not only Australian drama but excellent series from overseas such as I, Claudius, Family at War, The Forsythe Saga. One gets intellectual humour on the ABC that one does not find on the commercial stations. I refer to programs such as The Good Life, which dealt with a very interesting situation in a humorous way and which brought out many of the conflicts and difficulties in living an alternative lifestyle. The program Steptoe and Son brought out the pathos of elderly people in a depressed situation. As Senator Powell has mentioned, one sees the occasional religious program on commercial television, but they are straight presentations of church services. One does not get on commercial television the in-depth discussion of comparative religions and religion at work in various countries that one gets on the ABC. The various State orchestras have been mentioned. Senator Schacht —Do you like all the programs on the ABC? Senator COULTER —It is interesting that Senator Schacht is attempting to run down the ABC during this debate. I shall listen to what he has to say with some interest. The ABC conducts simulcast broadcasts of opera, ballet and serious music. I am sure that Senator Schacht has never watched those programs because he has no interest in them. It seems that he would deny other people the opportunity to have that enjoyment and that uplifting experience. ABC FM consistently plays good music. My complaint is that one of the AM programs is no longer broadcasting good music; there is none on any of the commercial radio channels. In the area of investigative journalism we have the news, The 7.30 Report-I notice that many honourable senators watch that program in the dining room-and Four Corners. I shall list some of the programs which have led to major and important inquiries in this country. The Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct that is going on at present would not have occurred had the Four Corners program not investigated that matter. Another excellent program which was run on Four Corners concerned the neglect of surplus military aircraft. Some years ago Andrew Olle did a program on the inadequacy of pesticide regulations in Australia. Another program was about the Rainbow Warrior occurrence and the French connection there. The program on Aboriginal deaths in custody has led to a major and very important inquiry. A number of environmental issues have been raised, such as the one involving South West Tasmania. Just recently the investigation into the Whiskey Au Go Go fire bombing which led to the imprisonment of a person for 15 years was reopened because of investigations carried out by Four Corners, leading to a suggestion that the person who was so imprisoned may have been innocent. The ABC has also developed new initiatives. Very recently the ABC set up an Aboriginal television programs unit under Jim Everett. That unit run a series of magazine panel discussions as well as showing entertainment, drama and education programs. So the ABC is and has been carrying out a number of very important functions. I wish to deal briefly with the question of advertising. There are a number of things wrong with the proposal that advertising be allowed on either the ABC or the Special Broadcasting Service. They relate to the nature of advertising. Frankly, I find very much of the advertising on commercial television channels and that which appears on commercial radio offensive and an insult to the intelligence. I mention now a very fundamental philosophical point that I am sorry to note that Senator Messner and, I guess, Senator Schacht are not sensitive to, and that is that advertising in these media uses people as instruments for commercial purposes. By way of example, I point to the recent-- Senator Messner —We don't support advertising on the ABC. Senator COULTER —That is what I heard Senator Messner say. Recently farmers have become concerned about the drop in beef sales. I might say that that is a consequence of concern being raised about saturated fatty acids being in beef and causing heart disease. Leaving aside whether or not that is right, the answer which farmers have suggested is the running of an advertising campaign. That is what occurs whenever there is an attempt to boost the sale of any goods or service. People are used as instruments of economic gain. People should be the important end aim of any activity in our society, not economic gain by interested forces. So advertising is in fact a process-- Senator Schacht —Are you against the beef industry in Australia? Senator COULTER —If Senator Schacht could not understand what I was saying, he is even less sensitive than I thought he was. Advertising is also socially and morally wrong and indefensible. It attempts to increase consumption simply for the sake of increasing consumption, when in fact we need to move to a more conserving type of society. Finally, I point out that the commercial television channels are run on a form of private taxation, because essentially that is what the profits that go into advertising are. Australia spends between $4 billion and $10 billion a year on advertising, and that is a form of private taxation. So, in making a comparison between the efficiency of the ABC and the commercial channels, we need to bear that in mind. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(6.38) —The matter of public importance raised by the Australian Democrats is a classic self-serving one for the Democrats. The Democrats are interested only in achieving one thing in Australian politics, and that is 7 per cent of the vote. That is the quota for which they must aim if they are to have at least one representative of the Australian Democrats elected in each State. They know that they do not have to be responsible in government or in opposition, because they will never have to deliver the goods in governing this country. What they are about is putting together a coalition of community interest groups motivated by single issues in order to achieve their 7 per cent quota to get them elected to the Australian Senate so that they can hold the balance of power. I congratulate them on their success. What the Australian Democrats are trying to do by means of this matter of public importance about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)-- Senator Coulter —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I ask that you direct Senator Schacht to address his remarks to the subject matter of the ABC and not to the desire of the Australian Democrats to win 7 per cent or any other percentage of the vote. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Schacht is entitled to speculate on the motivation that led to the matter being raised. Senator SCHACHT —I was coming to my point about why the Australian Democrats have raised this matter. They have noticed that public meetings have been held around Australia in recent days. Senator Coulter mentioned one held in Brisbane attended by 2,000 people. I understand that last night one was held in Perth with 3,000 people attending. The numbers people in the Australian Democrats say, `Goodness me, that is well on the way to getting our 7 per cent for the next quota. If we can motivate all those people to vote for us by perceiving that we are the champions of the ABC, irrespective of anything else, we will get back here after the next double dissolution or the next half Senate election'. So, in my view, the Democrats are not an alternative government or even alternative opposition. They are the 7 per cent party whose aim is to get that sort of support. When I decided to speak in this debate I got a copy of the Australian Democrats' policy speech for the last election. It is headed, `We've made 252 firm decisions . . .'. This is one of the most remarkable documents one could ever read. There are so many hidden political golden nuggets in here that it ought to be on the Goon Show on the ABC. I decided to go through the document to see what the Democrats say about the ABC. Incidentally, I have come across other things that interest the Democrats. The throw-away lines in policy include providing low interest loans and advocating to fund finance expansion and new ventures for small business. The reference is just low interest loans. There is no costing; it does not matter what the interest rate would be. It is just a throw away line. That is under the heading `Young People'. Another throw away line is: `Live Sheep-opposed the export'. The Democrats go around South Australia saying how they support rural industry. They do not go around the rural areas in South Australia saying they oppose the export of live sheep. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Schacht, although I said you could speculate on the origins of this matter of public importance, you must get back to it eventually. Senator SCHACHT —I am just going through this document trying to find the Australian Democrats' commitment to the ABC. I keep coming across lots of other interesting issues-for example, to exempt retread tyres from sales tax. That is in the policy speech; it is a major item. `Abolish payroll tax' is another simple line that is in the policy speech. Finally, I tried to find what is in the record about the ABC. There is a commitment to oppose the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service with the ABC. That appears at about page 12 or 13. I notice also there is a commitment to extend television and radio services to remote areas. That is fine. I think the Senate would be very interested to note that just immediately above that the Democrats have the following comment: `Telephone charges-assessment on the basis of time, not distance'. Senator Puplick —What! Senator Messner —What! Senator SCHACHT —That is right. It is in the policy. They favour timed telephone calls. It is in the policy speech from the last election. We did not hear them commenting on that issue too much in the last three or four weeks. It is in Janine Haines's policy speech. We will come back to that issue in the next few weeks in this Senate when we debate a few issues about telecommunications. Senator Messner —There goes a New South Wales upper House seat. Senator SCHACHT —I am sure it will be of interest to the people of New South Wales that the Democrats are in favour of timed telephone calls. Finally, on page 15, we get down to the arts. It is stated, `Quotas: radio and television-support for Australian content quotas'. That is at the end of this document of 252 firm decisions. There is no mention made of commitment to the ABC, of an independent corporation providing diversity. This document, which is supposed to be the guideline for the Democrats if they somehow fall into government, or for their guidance in this chamber alone for the next three years, makes no mention about the ABC; so today we get this matter of public importance about the need for an independent national broadcasting service. Why was that not included in the Democrats' policy speech for the last election? Obviously when the policy group collective of the Democrats got together, unfortunately someone from the ABC did not turn up and they forgot to put it in. They have everything else in the document except the ABC and its future. I must say that it is with a large grain of salt that I treat this matter from the Democrats as serious. As I said, they have gone back to the idea of trying to gain 7 per cent of the quota. If the Democrats thought that 10,000 people who supported the flat earth society out in the community would change their vote, the Democrats would support the flat earth society because that is the way they would get a group of votes to help them reach their quota. Senator Powell —How many votes did you get? You fell in on the preferences of the Democrats. Senator SCHACHT —Fine, Senator Powell. I am here, you are here. Next election the Democrats might well come back with five or six senators, but the Australian Labor Party will come back with up to 36 senators. Senator Puplick —Ask her what happened to Senator Siddons. Senator SCHACHT —What about Senator Vigor, that great Democrat from South Australia put in here for three years? The Democrats could not wait to dump him because he turned out to be half a lunatic. The Democrats even admit that themselves. Just remember, Senator Powell, that the only reason the Democrats sit in this chamber is because Arthur Calwell in 1948 decided to introduce proportional representation as a form of counting the votes for the Senate. You should sit down every night and offer thanks to Arthur Calwell, because that is the reason you are here. Senator Coulter —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I would ask Senator Schacht to withdraw the remark that former Senator Vigor was half a lunatic. I do not think that is parliamentary language in this place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! I think out of respect for the courtesy of the chamber, Senator Schacht, you should withdraw that remark. Senator SCHACHT —I beg your pardon? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think it would be a courtesy to the chamber to withdraw the remark. Senator SCHACHT —I withdraw the remark. Senator McLean —Just withdraw out of respect for the chamber. Senator SCHACHT —I have withdrawn it. I did not hear what the Acting Deputy President said. I have withdrawn the remark. I have exposed that the Democrats do not have any serious policy about the ABC, because it was not in the policy document. But so far as the ABC is concerned, Senator Richardson explained that on Friday the Government will issue a number of statements about the future of the ABC. I suspect that will be a better basis for the debate to take place in the community than the Democrats jumping in now cheer chasing for temporary support. One of the questions about the ABC which I wish to make quite clear is that I support, and always have supported-I was formerly chairman of the Australian Labor Party's National Executive Policy Committee on Arts and Media-the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Senator Powell —Is that in your policy speech? Senator SCHACHT —Absolutely. If the honourable senator wants me to quote it, it is on page 21, sections 22 and 23. At least it is in our platform; is it not in the honourable senator's? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Powell, you have already spoken in this debate. If you speak again I will deal with you. Senator SCHACHT —It is already in our platform. We are fair dinkum about our support for the ABC. I believe that the ABC over the last couple of years has made substantial improvements in its efficiency. Many of us would agree that there are still improvements to be made. I will not attempt to be an amateur programmer for the ABC like Senator Coulter. If Senator Coulter was let loose in the ABC programming department, the ABC would have a viewership and a listenership of less than one per cent. I believe that as the Australian taxpayers generally provide over $400m for the ABC, it has to cater not only for minority groups, which Senator Coulter clearly caters for. It also ought to cater for a large section of the general population. I do not believe it is appropriate that the taxpayers completely fund a broadcasting service that will serve only a very small percentage of the Australian population. The ABC in my view should have a mixture of programs and be able to compete and draw to it large sections of the Australian population. The honourable senator made disparaging remarks about Rock Arena and those sorts of programs which young people watch. I think they are appropriate for the ABC. Programs like that are excellent for young people, and even middle aged rock and rollers such as myself enjoy them and get great value out of the entertainment. I want to mention, because it has been raised by previous speakers, the role of the ABC news and current affairs section. I do not think there is a political party or politician in Australia who at some stage has not complained about the operation of the ABC news and current affairs department. I would be one of them because at times I felt that my Party or I might have been harshly dealt with by the way the ABC has covered a particular point of view. However, I fully support the ABC being independent, vigorous and not intimidating by any group in the community, even including my own Party. I think, on balance, over a period of time what one might lose on the swings will be picked up on the roundabout of what is said on the ABC. There has been recent controversy about the John Pilger program. I believe it is appropriate that programs of the style of journalism that John Pilger or Marian Wilkinson specialise in should be supported and should be on the ABC. I may disagree with practically everything they say, but they have the right to have their views heard, and on the balance of the swings within the ABC there will be a range of diversity of opinion so the people can make up their own minds. I suspect that the ABC should operate on the great maxim of Voltaire: `I disagree with everything you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it'. That is my view about the ABC. I may disagree with much of what journalists and commentators may say but I support their right to say it. Senator McLean —Give them enough money to do it. Senator SCHACHT —Despite the fact that the honourable senator claims that the ABC is short of money, in the past two years we have had the Pilger programs and we have had Four Corners with Marian Wilkinson and other journalists promoting programs that have created controversy. These programs have been able to be shown by the ABC over the last couple of years even though the honourable senator says that funding has been substantially reduced. It is all very well for the Democrats to claim that the ABC is being reduced by funding. This Government has to make tough decisions about priorities right across the board in the running of this country, providing money for many different worthwhile projects. It is no good for the running of this country if, to make oneself feel good, one says that the ABC will get another $100m, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation will get another $50m, et cetera. Once one goes through that list, sane economic management of this country will come to an end. In the end there will be no money for anybody because the economy will be wrecked. In five years this Labor Government has restored the economic management of this country to a sound basis so that the ABC can get its reasonable share and so that many other organisations, just as worthy as the ABC, can keep their place in the sun, too. I hope that one day the Democrats will come into this chamber and move a motion that accepts the fact that one does not govern this country by specific resolution, point by point, and that there is a case to be made for governing the country on a balance of priorities. I certainly hope that at the next general election the Democrats will not insult the Australian people with this sort of document-252 firm decisions that are contradictory and that do not stand up. Above all, I urge the Democrats to support the ABC in their next policy speech. Senator Coulter —Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Schacht. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Coulter, take your point at the end of the debate. I call Senator Puplick. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.52) —The matter brought forward by Senator Powell draws attention to a number of matters in relation to the future of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). I wish to comment on two of them. One is the evidence of government interference with the independence and programming independence of the ABC. The other is the role of the ABC in the light of what the matter from the Australian Democrats refers to as the dramatic concentration of the ownership of all sectors of the Australian media over the last two years. I turn firstly to the question of the need for a national broadcaster to be kept free from government interference. Government interference with national broadcasters is not confined to totalitarian countries. Even an institution such as the British Broadcasting Corporation does not find itself from time to time able to resist the pressures put upon it by governments in that country. The ABC, I regret to say, not only has not been able to resist pressure put on it by the Government but indeed has taken some decisions at a managerial level which I believe have been designed to keep the Government off its back and, when Government pressure has been applied in certain areas, has been only too willing to buckle under. I propose to cite three cases, each of them of fairly recent origin. The first, to which reference has already been made, is the question of the appointment of Wendy Bacon to a position in the ABC. It will be recalled that Wendy Bacon had established a reputation in the newspapers, in particular in the Times on Sunday and in its predecessor, the National Times, for what is colloquially called investigative journalism. Most of that journalism was devoted to exposing rackets, scandals and criminal behaviour touching directly upon the right wing of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in New South Wales and the whole sleazy web of mates and arrangements which have become a feature of the Government of New South Wales and which are shortly to be purged at the election on 19 March. The way in which Wendy Bacon was treated was clearly an attempt by people in the ABC to ensure that there was not some potential further embarrassment for the ABC by having on staff somebody known to be hostile to, or at the very least known not to have been intimidated by, those in the Government who have close links with the ABC and close links, through the ABC, with all sorts of other elements. A report by Lyndall Crisp in the Times on Sunday on 3 January 1988 drew attention to the penchant Mr Hill has for hiring old ALP connections, a number of whom were named in the article. The article said in part: The public debate on this issue- that is, the appointment of Ms Bacon- makes it apparent that Labor stalwarts such as Mr Hill, who is believed to have his eye on Canberra, will never forgive Ms Bacon for writing critical stories that expose weaknesses, great and small, in Labor heroes such as Lionel Murphy, Bob Hawke and Neville Wran. Mr Hill decided that the best way to defend himself from this attack was to call into question Ms Bacon's suitability for the position. A report in the Adelaide Advertiser on 16 January 1988 says of Mr Hill: He said that he had not been able to satisfy himself that Ms Bacon was fully qualified in terms of ability and experience for a position with the program. That is absolute and arrant nonsense. The decision-a decision which I welcome and on which I congratulate the ABC-to appoint Trisha Goddard to the ABC quite clearly indicates that the question of whether a person has the ability, talent or experience is clearly very subjective. It does not necessarily derive from long experience in a particular format. I make no secret of the fact that Trisha Goddard is a friend of mine. She has been a very good friend of mine since she first arrived in Australia. I was delighted with her appointment. But the point that it illustrates is this: in order to secure that sort of position with the ABC Mr Hill was quite prepared, on the one hand, to defend Ms Goddard's lack of experience as a presenter of those sorts of programs and, on the other hand, to say that that was grounds upon which Ms Bacon should be ruled out. That is simply not the reason Ms Bacon did not get the job. She did not get the job because the ABC had already been bullied and cowered by the Government into not appointing people who were regarded as unsympathetic to a particular faction within the Labor Party. The second instance relates to a story which Alan Ramsey reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 December 1987 in which he alleged that he had been told by the Prime Minister that `We don't fund the ABC to do programs on Peter Abeles', which implied quite clearly that the Prime Minister was anxious to see that the ABC did not pursue particular lines of inquiry or inquiry into particular individuals. Despite the calls by Senator Messner for an inquiry to be conducted into the basis of whether these allegation were correct, absolutely nothing has been done in that regard. The third instance I raise is a rather wonderful one which I have had the pleasure of pursuing through Estimates committees-the question of why the ABC should not be allowed to broadcast a tape it has of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) giving a lecture at the Australian National Gallery. Mr Keating gave a lecture at the Australian National Gallery, described by Tony Stephens in the Sydney Morning Herald at some length. Mr John McDonald, the newspaper's art writer, examined the tape of Mr Keating's lecture which the ABC had made but which was being prevented from being broadcast. The article reads: Mr McDonald said . . . ``The Treasurer made a good fist of his material- it was a speech about neo-classical art- presenting a competent crib of the art and philosophy of the period. It would have passed for the work of any group of undergraduates in a fine arts department. The actual written text of Mr Keating's speech was made available when a Senate Estimates committee demanded that it be made available. A request to the ABC under the Freedom of Information Act for it had previously been rejected. Those who have heard the tape will say-indeed, this is the substance of the report carried in the Sydney Morning Herald-that the reason that the tape was not broadcast was that the Treasurer has what the Sydney Morning Herald report describes as a `haywire' method of pronunciation. It stated that names such as Brunelleschi, Greuze and David and the Oath of the Horatii were not able to be pronounced in a way which reflects adequately upon the competence of the Treasurer to divest himself of his massive knowledge of neo-classical art. It is a very sorry position to have arrived at for the ABC to be intimidated into not broadcasting what, after all, the Treasurer undoubtedly claims is a significant contribution to the intellectual life of this country in terms of information about neo-classical art. I turn to the role of the ABC. I agree with a great deal of what has been said in terms of the significance of the specialist broadcasting of the ABC. Senator Coulter drew attention to the fact that the Opposition ought to listen to the Earthworm program, in particular the program that Peter Hunt did on the suppression of certain material by the Western Australian Government. If Senator Coulter had paid closer attention to the two parts of that he would have heard that I was interviewed at length on that program, so the Opposition is fully seized of the significance of Peter Hunt's report and indeed his praise of Occam's Razor is absolutely correct. I had the pleasure of giving at least one of the 15-minute talks on Occam's Razor and I have broadcast about 35 book reviews for the ABC Science Show as well as a large number of set pieces over the last couple of years. It is therefore very disturbing to see that in today's Sydney Morning Herald Robyn Williams is quoted as saying: We are already a Third World broadcaster in terms of resources and manning compared with the BBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the US public broadcasters. He went on to describe the relative difficulties with which the ABC science unit has to contend. I entirely endorse the remarks Senator Coulter made about the significance of the ABC Science Show and equally leap to its defence against the interjection of my friend Senator Schacht from South Australia, who is a most delightful aging rocker but I think he has his broadcasting priorities entirely wrong. Similarly, the work done by Norman Swan about the McBride investigations is an important contribution not only to scientific debate but to the standards of intellectual integrity and intellectual life of this country. Whether it be radio programs concerning war crimes allegations or television programs such as those dealing with police corruption in Queensland, the ABC can claim to have led to a situation-no commercial television station can claim this-in which it has prompted significant action by governments to respond to reports. In the few minutes available to me I would also say that the contribution of the ABC in particular to country and rural broadcasting is of enormous importance, being the primary means of communication and information distribution in the largest part of Australia. The role of Radio Australia has been alluded to by Senator Messner and I entirely endorse his remarks. The final point I make concerns the role of the ABC in the promotion of the arts in general. The ABC's annual report indicates that the Australian content of ABC television was 52.4 per cent. While it acknowledges that its drama production in 1986-87 was only 35 hours-as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, commercial stations are required to broadcast 104 hours and the ABC has a long way to go to get up to those standards-nevertheless it is clear the contribution the ABC makes to the performing arts in Australia is of enormous importance. In its current brochure Tough Options it draws attention to the fact that the six ABC orchestras attract more than one million concert patrons a year. Frankly, without the contribution by the State orchestras maintained by the ABC there would be a great shortage of access-and that is the important thing-for ordinary Australians, no matter where they might live, to quality orchestral music. So the contribution of the ABC as a specialist broadcaster in areas such as science, investigative political journalism, rural broadcasting, the arts, the ABC orchestras, the education and children's programs and Radio Australia is entirely acknowledged. The Corporation is the major provider of arts, education and children's programming in popular broadcasting. The ABC broadcasts approximately 40 per cent of its material in those categories compared with the commercial stations' output of 17 per cent. Time has not allowed me to go into an analysis of all the financial claims which Senator Powell made. One has to be cognisant of the remarks that Senator Schacht made about the need for financial restraint in a number of areas. Those do have to borne in mind: they are serious criticisms. Nevertheless, there is a need to preserve the national broadcaster free from Government interference and to recognise the specialist role of the ABC. I believe this will become more important as networking-indeed, networking out of Los Angeles-becomes the dominant feature of commercial broadcasting in Australia. The role of the ABC will be important not only in that specialist area but indeed in the preservation of whatever will be left of localism, local input and the reflection of Australian culture, Australian heritage and the interests of Australian citizens. To that extent, I am glad to have had the opportunity to make some remarks about the ABC and I am pleased that this matter of public importance has been brought before the Senate. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(7.07) —I completely support Senator Powell's timely matter of public importance statement, although Senator Richardson has tried to assure us that this debate is happening too soon, that the report of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) to be made public on Friday is just the starting point of the debate. In that case, we are getting in early to give the Government a notion of the opinions of some of the people's elected representatives. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been operating on a shoestring budget for years. The budget cuts are not new but part of an ongoing erosion of the ABC's viability. Before I go into that in greater detail I would like to mention Radio Australia, which has already been mentioned by a couple of speakers in this debate. There is concern that Radio Australia's budget has already been cut. Our views are greatly appreciated by people in other countries and what comes over to other countries from Australia helps to promote understanding in the region. This is a very important contribution that Radio Australia has made. It will not be able to continue to make such a contribution with the funding cuts that it has suffered. I believe that the ABC and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) programs affect the cultural identity of this country. We need to make more and more Australian programs rather than fewer and fewer. We already have a surfeit of overseas material. One of the ongoing problems in Australian life and something we should be addressing seriously in our bicentennial year is the question of the Australian identity, whether we actually have one or not. The ABC has made an enormous contribution to our cultural life by producing quality programs of Australian origin. We need more, not less. We have excellent people here in the film and television industries who are feeling very stifled by the lack of funding. They feel they cannot have a proper outlet for their creative talents because of a dearth of local funding. It is as though we are not appreciating our own talent. Once again, people will feel, as they have in the past, that they have to go overseas to get experience and work in the creative fields. That is just not good enough. We are denying our own talent by not funding adequately creative, artistic programs such as the ABC has been able to make, albeit on shoestring budgets for the last 10 years. Senator Puplick has taken many of the points that I was going to make in talking about the cuts that have been suffered by the ABC, but I want to quote slightly more fully some of the ABC's top line people in Sydney as they were quoted in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. We have already heard about Robyn Williams. He said that we are a Third World broadcaster; but it is important to know how he makes his programs. He says: I go along to interviews-with myself and my tape recorder-while the BBC has a three-person team. My science unit is me and one other to make programs all year, while the CBC- that is, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- science unit has five staff and only 36 weeks of programs a year. This line-up of the ABC Sydney people are extremely distressed about the current situation. Sandra Levy says: We're battling hard to increase drama output to 100 hours this year, and we're using every entrepreneurial device we can-including co-financings with overseas organisations-to make the funds go further. Norman Swan says: We have already had big cuts, with broadcast music chopped and the station now unable to record young Australian talent. We're losing precious technical skills, and we aren't training people. I think it is a great shame that Australia is actually losing the great talent that it has available in encouraging young people. Andrew Olle makes this very pertinent statement: You could cut Parliamentary broadcasts-that's the only cut I could see, but unfortunately that saves very little money. Of course, the people here would not agree with that, but I think we have to look at the parliamentary broadcast being given a special frequency so that other programs are not cut or interrupted to the extent that they are at the moment. A few people are avid listeners to parliamentary broadcasts: there are not many. Many people I know hear the parliamentary broadcasts by accident. But the people must have access to what is going on in the Parliament. Margaret Throsby says: We're at the cliff's edge. I've been with the ABC 22 years, and I see this crisis as now absolutely catastrophic. People will only realise the loss when the next round of cuts occur. It may be too late then. The ABC is more crucial than ever with the increase in concentration of media ownership. Senator Powell has already addressed that matter in some depth. I agree totally that, because of the increasing media monopolisation, it is more important than ever for the ABC to be adequately funded. Caroline Jones says: The Government, in depleting the resources for a healthy national broadcaster, is striking at the wellbeing of the Australian people. The ABC is a vital means of reflecting our way of life. Its programs nourish our spirit, help us to know who we are. That is a very important point indeed. The ABC programming of Australian origin is very important in helping us to attain a sense of cultural and national identity. Senator Coulter has talked about the quality of programs. They are superior to the trivialis- ation which we get from commercial broadcasters, no matter what kinds of programs we look at-whether they are news programs, current affairs broadcasts, programs looking at issues behind the news or light entertainment. Whatever the area, the ABC broadcasts are of superior quality to those run by the commercial stations. The only real attempts at investigative journalism in this country come from the ABC. The Four Corners program has already been given many credit points in this debate tonight by both Senator Coulter and Senator Puplick. It is largely responsible for the Fitzgerald inquiry going on in Queensland at the moment, to name just one of many. Many important inquiries have flowed from the Four Corners team of investigative journalists. They have been very brave to go into some areas, against what I am sure has been a great deal of pressure, but they have done it and that is to their credit. That must be able to continue. The public has a right to know about the important issues which are investigated by the ABC teams. A cut in funding will contribute to the death of democracy in this country. The people have a right to know the issues behind the glib coverage that is given to news by the commercial stations. An uninformed public cannot make informed decisions. We are given the real mushroom treatment: keep the people in the dark and feed them manure-the polite term, I believe. The mushroom treatment has been dealt out to the Australian people. The ABC is the only broadcaster that attempts to give us decent information and the points of news behind what is immediately obvious. How many times have people heard and seen items on the ABC not given a run anywhere else? I bet that is the experience of all senators in this place. We should be supporting the ABC to the hilt. The commercial media is notorious for not airing alternative viewpoints. It has a coca-cola mentality, whereby everything has to have an immediate zing to it and to be easily swallowed, with no questions asked and with lots of boring repeats. Anyone with a point of view not considered mainstream has more difficulty getting coverage in this country with either commercial television or commercial radio, and increasingly with the newspapers, than with the ABC. This is increasingly so for the print media with the encroaching monopolisation. For example, environmental issues do not get a good run from commercial television, radio or newspapers because of corporate sponsorship. It is too dangerous for the media companies to run sensitive environmental issues because there are vested interests at risk. The ABC's role in airing different voices without necessarily agreeing with all points of view is vital to our democratic process. If there is not overt political interference in the content, criticism and style of media performance in this country, there certainly is covert interference or, if you like, self-regulation. Journalists working for commercial media outlets know that they must discipline themselves, that they must not contravene their bosses' commercial interests, as if they do so they will be out of work. There is increasingly a dearth of investigative journalism. Unfortunately, that is beginning to happen in the ABC as well. Political interference could not be more obvious than the well known remark of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the effect that we do not pay the ABC to run stories on Sir Peter Abeles. Senator Puplick has already referred to that. We all know of the disturbing collusion between the Prime Minister and the big boys of Australian business. How sickening it was to see-incidentally, on the ABC-the Prime Minister grovelling before Kerry Packer and Alan Bond at the glittering gathering of the 500 Club. It makes one wonder whether the censorship applied to Pilger's television documentary The Last Dream last Sunday night was the result of political interference or whether it was motivated by self-regulation. In either case, it was a disgrace. This program was first promoted by the ABC as the conscience of the Bicentennial. There was first a disclaimer on that conscience and then a cut to the program, despite the fact that there was an indemnity against legal action, of which the ABC was well aware. It is a sign of worse things to come, I believe, if the ABC's independence is not preserved. The ABC's independence is being undermined at the moment and is in danger of being totally lost. Senator Puplick asked a very good question about Wendy Bacon's appointment. She was sacked before she started. Whose influence was that? The ABC urgently needs help. It needs the active support of listeners and viewers to protect its existence in its present form. We cannot let 1988, our bicentennial year, also become known as the year in which the ABC went commercial. That would be a great shame indeed. Last night 3,000 people packed the Perth Concert Hall in support of the ABC. Tonight there is to be a meeting called by the Friends of the ABC in Sydney. The ABC is appealing publicly to its listeners and viewers to give it support, and that support is forthcoming. Particularly from the point of view of Western Australian listeners and viewers-we suffer from the Cinderella syndrome or the tyranny of distance in the west-the ABC is often the only way for us to get an idea of what is going on on the other side of the country. It is most important that we maintain the services of the ABC to keep us in touch with what is going on where most people seem to think the power lies in this country. It is historically true that the ABC has offended all governments. That is absolutely appropriate. If its independence is to be maintained, it is right and fitting that it should offend government. Its job is to investigate, to question, to challenge. It should do that. It is a good thing that it should be criticised by all governments rather then being stomped on. That is occurring at the moment. The ABC is so afraid that it will not continue to get Government funding because it is being stomped on and interfered with by the politicians and the bureaucrats in Canberra that its independence is in great jeopardy. I cannot believe Senator Richardson's assurances that the Government has not threatened cuts and is not seeking outside non-government funding sources. Of course the ABC and the SBS need security. They need at least three-year budget plans so that they know exactly where they stand. I am pleased to hear that there are no plans to merge the ABC and the SBS. They serve valuable and different sectors of the Australian community. But I am not reassured by Senator Richardson that no decisions have yet been made. Often when the Government calls for public debate, that means that the plan is to defuse public concern. That there are public meetings taking place all around the country this week is a reflection of that. The Government ought to take note of the huge public meetings that are occurring around the country this week. It ought to take note of the enormous support that the ABC has in its present form. It actually needs an increase in funding so that it can restore some of the staff levels it used to have, so that people are not worked to a frazzle trying to keep up the high standards. People are calling not only for a continuation of the ABC and SBS programs but most importantly for independent funding. Australians are very clearly saying that the ABC and the SBS should not be maintained by commercial funding. That would change the nature of the ABC and the SBS altogether. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians want the ABC funded by the taxpayers' dollars. We are prepared to pay for the ABC to continue its excellent service-at our expense. That is the bottom line. Most of the ABC's supporters would want an increase in funding, but neither we nor the ABC's staff are being greedy at this stage when the very existence of it as we know it is threatened. Since June 1985 the ABC's staff has been cut by 10.2 per cent; 708 jobs have been lost. That is a huge cut already and the ABC cannot sustain more. As ABC staffer, Bob Wilcox, Perth Manager of ABC Television, said yesterday: We (ABC staffers) feel we have nothing left to lose. We unashamedly seek public support for continued independence. The people of Australia are responding to that call. We hope that the Government does too by at the very least maintaining the current level of government funding. Senator COULTER(South Australia) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator COULTER —Senator Schacht claimed that I had said that Rock Arena should not be on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). I did not say that. Senator Schacht did say by way of interjection that he preferred Rock Arena to the ABC Science Show and I said that that indicated his taste. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator SCHACHT —I just wish to put the record straight. I asked Senator Coulter, by way of interjection, what he thought of Rock Arena. I did not say that I thought Rock Arena was better than the Science Show. I just said that I supported Rock Arena and I continue to support it, although I notice that Senator Coulter offered no support at all for it. I think the Science Show and others are excellent, but I also believe Rock Arena is excellent. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator McLEAN —I claim to have been misrepresented earlier in the debate on the matter of public importance. During Senator Schacht's contribution he purported to represent Australian Democrat policy. I do not think he misrepresented me as a Democrat senator-- Senator Tate —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is not fair that this is an explanation of a personal misrepresentation. It is a continuation of the debate about the policy attributed to the Democrats, and I do not think it falls within the usual indulgence that I thought I was granting. The PRESIDENT —I was waiting to see whether Senator McLean got to his personal explanation. I would ask him to do that. Senator McLEAN —Having used this policy to win a seat in the Senate, I object to it now being misrepresented, because it is misrepresenting me. The PRESIDENT —Senator McLean, you got leave to make a personal explanation. I would suggest that at the moment you are really carrying on the debate. Senator McLEAN —My interpretation of what has occurred is that in an earlier outburst, which was really fairly uncontrolled, Senator Schacht purported to represent policies which I uphold. He misrepresented them, and I now wish to draw attention to the fact that he misrepresented them. The PRESIDENT —It is not a misrepresentation to misquote another party's policies, Senator McLean. The PRESIDENT —Order! On two occasions Senator Crowley has raised with me the results of testing of the Parliament House air-conditioning system and therefore, for the information of honourable senators, I bring to the attention of the Senate the results of the most recent tests for legionella bacteria in the Parliament House air-conditioning systems. By way of background, tests for legionella bacteria have been undertaken on water cooling towers associated with the air-conditioning systems in Parliament House since 1981. Regular dumping of the water, scrubbing of the tanks and dosing with approved chemicals has been maintained. During tests in October 1987 very low levels of legionella bacteria-10 colony forming units per millilitre-were reported in the Prime Minister's and East Block water cooling towers. I have been informed that this level was too low to pose a health hazard. That opinion was based on advice from a microbiologist and a technical information paper issued by the mechanical branch of the then Department of Housing and Construction in April 1987, entitled Measures to Control Legionnaire's Disease Hazards in Buildings, which advises that maintenance procedures are satisfactory where colony counts in the order 0 to 20 colony forming units per millilitre are found. Nevertheless, upon receipt of the test results, the contents of both water cooling towers were dumped, the tanks scrubbed and further chemical dosing was carried out. Further testing was carried out during January this year and inquiries by the Parliament's chief engineer this morning chasing up the test results for this latest testing has brought to light evidence of legionella bozemanii, a non-pathogenic legionella bacteria. The microbiologist engaged by the testing firm, Maxwell Chemicals Pty Ltd of Sydney, stressed to the Parliament's chief engineer that legionella bozemanii is non- pathogenic and should not be confused with legionella pneumophila, which is the bacteria associated with the commonly-named legionnaire's disease. I further inform the Senate that the latest decontamination of the Parliament's water cooling tower system was carried out on 30 January 1988. The Parliament's chief engineer has arranged for the water treatment manager of Maxwell Chemicals Pty Ltd of Sydney to meet with him on 25 February to see if any further measures or procedures can be undertaken. Arrangements are also being made for an inspection and report on appropriate preventative measures to be undertaken with regard to the new Parliament House air-conditioning system. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(7.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In the minute and a half that is remaining to debate this in the Senate I will make a number of observations on the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority annual report 1986-87, which was tabled in the Senate today. It is a not unremarkable annual report. It is in the sequence of some 10 that we have received in successive years in the Senate. But what is remarkable is that nowhere in this report is there any consideration given to anything less than the full contribution of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Council to the Authority's objectives and achievements. Indeed, there is a warm sense of congratulation and commendation of the work of the Council in the annual report up until June of last year. However, just a few weeks after the end of this reporting period the present Government sacked the whole Council. Without any warning to the Chairman or the other eight ordinary members of the Council this Labor Government sacked that Chairman and the members, including the representative of the Australian Capital Territory Council of Parents and Citizens Associations, and the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation representative, and those others, including all of the members of the Council set out in the appendix to this report, not least as I said the Chairman, Dr Don Anderson, a respected academic who had been Chairman of the Schools Authority Council for two years. I want to draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that the cost of the Council was some $70,000 a year in a budget of $150m; that the Council has been in operation for 10 years; that the Government intends not to replace it but rather to sum up the powers of the Authority in one person, the Chief Executive, and so on. I seek leave to continue my remarks when the papers are on the agenda tomorrow. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(7.30) —I would like to raise a couple of matters during the adjournment debate tonight. They are mundane matters that affect many people in this country at present. You may recall, Mr President, that on 10 December 1987, when speaking on a taxation Bill, I mentioned that the Government should look at the idea of increasing the threshold for the payment of provisional tax. I said: When the Government next considers reforming the tax laws I hope it will look at the theshold for the payment of provisional tax. The threshold at that time was $999. At that time I said that it was a disincentive to saving, and that there were young and old people alike who tended to spend that part of their savings above the level at which they would have to pay provisional tax. Last weekend I read an article in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph headed, `Labor faces a new ``Adelaide earthquake'' '. I will not dwell on the misfortunes of the Australian Labor Party in Adelaide, but I will point out a few facts contained in that article, which read: About 350,000 pensioners face the chilling prospect of a provisional tax bill this year. * * * Of two million aged pensioners and veterans, about 350,000-or almost one-third more than three years ago-are estimated by the Tax Office to be liable for more tax. Those who earn more than the $999 threshold-a rate fixed nine years ago-in income from interest, dividends, or returns from other investments, will be forced to cough up. * * * I don't think it was ever meant to get people on low incomes and fixed incomes, and say to them, ``This year, when you have earned that extra $1,000, you will be double taxed''.' The point about this article that I like is that obviously the writer got some information from Treasury. I will read what the article states that the Treasury said: According to Treasury experts, it would cost the Government only $20 million to raise the threshold from $999 to $2,000. Such a move already is widely supported in Caucus- the Treasury did not state that the move was widely supported in Caucus; its statement ended with the reference to the figure of $2,000- and backbenchers see it as money well spent. But it is not a matter of spending money. If the threshold is raised from $1,000 in round figures-and I use that figure instead of saying $999 each time-to $2,000, no tax is forgone; it is merely extended into the next year. Those who pay provisional tax will find that, instead of paying it by 31 March, it will be paid in the next financial year. In other words, average wage earners will have to pay their tax bill by about September. So it is a lie for the Treasury to say that it would cost the Government $20m. I would like the Treasury, if it gives such information to newspapers, to give the whole information so that people can judge for themselves exactly what figure the Government would forgo, which is absolutely nil. As I said, it is a disincentive to saving. The threshold, as I said, was set in 1979. What can we buy now for the same price that we would have paid in 1979? We could not buy a bus ticket or anything else. It is ridiculous even to contemplate it. In 1979, from what I can remember, the figure for average earnings was $12,000 a year. I understand that the figure is now about $24,000. So on that basis alone the threshold should be at least doubled. Having regard to the high interest rates of the last couple of years which are still fairly prevalent, a person would need only a small amount of savings, probably about $9,000, to receive unearned income of $999. As I have said before, this leads to unnecessary spending in order to avoid paying provisional tax. We are told by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that it is time to save. I agree that it is time to save. We are living in a slightly uncertain era; even the Government will admit to that. It is supposed to be a time of saving, but this is certainly not a way to save. As the article stated, it is not only pensioners who are affected. A case was pointed out to me today of a married couple who have been saving for quite a few years for a deposit for a house. Now that their deposit has reached such a level that they may be able to start to look for a house, they have been lumbered with a provisional tax bill which means they are virtually being double taxed and they will either have to wait another year to look for a house or have their deposit drastically reduced. It is up to the Government to increase that threshold from $999 to at least $2,500 and remove these disincentives to saving. I consider that the Government should not wait until the May mini-Budget to do so; it should do so immediately. I wish to raise another point this evening. Mr President, you may remember that in the last session of Parliament I asked various questions about the harmonising of tariffs that this Government has introduced. In particular, I refer to import duty on turbo-charger parts and diesel fuel injector parts. I received from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) various replies as to how that scheme would be put into action so that the tariff on certain parts would remain at the 2 per cent level. It should be borne in mind that these are special parts that are manufactured elsewhere, not in Australia. The tariff on turbo-charger parts is to remain at 2 per cent, but nothing has been done in regard to fuel injector parts and I understand that nothing will be done until at least April. My fears were not ill-founded. Because there has been no dispensation to reduce the 25 per cent tariff on certain parts to 2 per cent-although in certain cases the applications were lodged last July-the importers have stopped importing these parts while they have awaited a decision. Supplies of those parts have diminished. People are importing these parts only if it is absolutely necessary. If a machine breaks down, the repair shop tells the customer, `The part has to come from overseas, there will be a 25 per cent tariff on it, compounded by sales tax. Do you want it or not?'. The customers must make up their minds. Of course, if they earn their livelihood from the machine that has broken down, they are caught by the throat and they have to say yes. It should be borne in mind that such importations of parts are a one-off exercise, so the cost of importing a particular part would rise much quicker because of freight costs and so on. An example was given to me today of a part which, under the old system, cost $500. The part must be imported from New Zealand. I do not know why New Zealand holds better stocks of these parts than Australia does. perhaps it does not have the import problems that we have. Instead of costing $500, it costs $1,000. As I have said, these stocks are running down. I have been told by importers that we will reach a bad position by about the end of March. These diesel injection parts are used widely in the transport and earthmoving industries. Of course, Australia cannot run without its land transport, and our earthmoving industry affects road making, mining and anything one likes to mention. As I have said, the crisis will come in April. Stocks will run down. When they do, from my experience it will take a long time to get things moving. Even if the okay comes through to reduce the duty from 25 per cent back to 2 per cent, it takes a long time to get goods onto the wharf and then onto the water, or onto planes, and get them here. So the crisis will continue well into the year. I am asking the Government to look once again at this tardy decision it has made, and to get things moving, because of the fears I have. It is no great hassle to look into this, because after all the inquiries into these parts, into whether they are made in Australia or are available here, have been done in the past. It is only because of the new harmonisation system that the Government, through its Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, has made all the industries go back to reapply. It can be easily demonstrated that these parts are not made in Australia, so it would be a simple task for the Department to give them the okay, reduce the tariff back to 2 per cent and get stocks of those parts moving into Australia because certainly we do not want half of Australia's transport system and earthmoving industry bogged down well into the new year. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(7.42) —I wish to speak on a matter that concerns the New South Wales election, and also on various matters that I have dealt with in part in previous speeches in this House. In particular, I wish to extend my comments on some of those matters I have dealt with. On 15 February 1988 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Mr Peter Collins, issued a Press release saying that the continued misuse of public funds for Australian Labor Party (ALP) pre-election propaganda will be challenged in the courts. The findings are, from the advice we have had, that a plethora of case law will indeed back up such a challenge. In the 1978 case of Kanan v. Hawkins, Mr Justice Sweeney said: If in a general election . . . a government used public moneys and public civil servants to produce propaganda . . . that action would be completely condemned. On a previous occasion I mentioned that a whole series of advertisements had been used throughout New South Wales, estimated to have cost some $8m of taxpayers' money. That money was used on propaganda for the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. On that occasion I cited Surfline, which had an admitted-to budget of $330,000 and a recognised known cost of $1.1m. The aim of that advertisement was to counter Opposition and environmental groups' disclosures that Sydney waterways and beaches often suffer from serious pollution, including sewage. I mentioned Healthline, with a known cost of $800,000, announced on 8 November 1987, and a further $1m announced on 22 January 1988-a total allocation to date of $1.8m. The aim of that Healthline advertisement was to counter Opposition disclosures of extensive and unacceptable hospital waiting lists, including the disclosure that 13 deaths were caused by delays over a three-month period at the St George Hospital. I cited the Tangara train advertisements, estimated to have cost $1m. The aim of that advertisement was to counter Opposition attacks on the age and quality of State Rail Authority rolling stock, using the prototype of the next generation of New South Wales trains. I cited the advertisements concerning school discipline, with an estimated cost of $1m, to counter the Opposition's policies on improving school discipline and education standards. I cited also Neighbourhood Watch advertisements aimed at countering Opposition disclosures about the breakdown of law and order and which sought to revive public commitments to Neighbourhood Watch schemes following reports of a downturn as a result of inadequate police resources to service Neighbourhood Watch commitments. The value of those commercials was in the vicinity of $1m. The final advertisement I cited was in the housing area, and it was called Homesick Blues. The aim of this advertisement was to play down the public housing crisis in New South Wales, highlighted by the New South Wales Opposition. The estimated cost of this could not be less than $1m, and it replaced the earlier advertisements, called barbecue ads, featuring none other than the Minister for Housing, Mr Frank Walker. The point has been made-it has been made strongly and it will be backed up-that this is a rorting of the system, of taxpayers' money. Something in the vicinity of $8m has been squandered in an improper manner. I now come to a new allegation which compounds the evidence of wastage I have just given to the Senate. An allegation has been made by a group which calls itself the Eden-Monaro Survival Group. This Group makes reference to an incident which took place on 28 January, involving the use of a National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales helicopter and a fixed-wing aircraft being used at that time to fight a huge fire in the wilderness area in the south of the State and across into Victoria. The aircraft were diverted to shoot ALP advertisements for the coming election. Mr Rankin, the spokesman for the group, said that while volunteer bushfire fighters and New South Wales Forestry Commission staff were involved in fighting the blaze, the two aircraft were suddenly ordered out of the fight to participate in filming material for the ALP's State election campaign. He said: The fire was totally out of control at the time-and the two aircraft, which were helping to fight the fire, were ordered out of the fight. It is a clear demonstration of the cynicism of the State Government and an indictment of the Minister for Planning and the Environment, Mr Carr, and the Premier, Mr Unsworth. The aircraft were identified as bearing the markings VH-NPW-owned by the National Parks and Wildlife Service-and VH-PTH, which Mr Rankin alleges is also owned by the Service. The Government had admitted to using National Parks and Wildlife Service officers to help in its political campaign. An officer of the Service was recently involved in helping a film crew from John Singleton's advertising agency shoot a commercial to attack the forest industries on the south coast. The crew, apparently using public funds, chartered a helicopter, and an officer of the Service was involved in supervising the flight to spy on the logging areas. It is obvious that Mr Carr and Mr Unsworth will stop at nothing to denigrate workers in the forest industries. They have turned their backs on traditional Labor voters. The Government will now have to face the consequences. They are the allegations set out in the Press release issued by the Eden-Monaro Survival Group on 24 February. I can add, in terms of information received, that the aircraft with the serial number VH-NPW is a fixed-wing aircraft owned by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales and that the aircraft VH-PTH is a Squirrel helicopter, painted blue and white, also owned by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I can further inform the Senate that the name of the pilot of that aircraft was either George or Steve, who usually fly that particular aircraft. It is interesting that the normal method of operation of those aircraft is this: When they go such an operation-that is fighting bushfires-they have a standard, broad flight plan which is approved. Should they deviate from that flight plan they radio a schedule change which may or may not be logged. It may be logged by the pilot; it may also be logged by the Department. However, records of those changes are kept for three weeks only. That incident occurred on 28 January. Another record is kept of these flights. It is known, with regard to the Squirrel helicopter, as the helicopter trips records of the day. Those records are filed with and kept by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales. The purpose of my raising this matter in this place is quite simple: I call upon the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) in the Federal Government to take note of the serious allegations made by the Eden-Monaro survival group. He should see whether or not the logs of the flight patterns of those two aircraft are still in existence. Should that not be the case he should call upon his New South Wales colleagues-indeed, I think it is not too fine a point to say `friends and colleagues'-for the helicopter trip records of the day to be released by the Unsworth Government so that he may determine whether not only New South Wales but also Victoria were left at risk to the serious bushfires that traverse those States while those aircraft were used for political purposes. Going back to the legal cases that are cited, quite properly the advertisements which I have mentioned earlier ought to have been paid for by the ALP. They ought to have been authorised by Stephen Loosley. There is ample case law on the point. It is yet another example of the hypocrisy and the subterfuge that the Labor Government, the Unsworth Government in New South Wales, will stoop to to try to hold office at all costs. We have seen yet again a revival of an advertising technique used by Mr Singleton in a previous election. This time he seems to have used an up-market version of whingeing Wendy. Perhaps the rhetoric that she uses could best be applied to self; that is, the Unsworth Government. When she says, `I don't mean to be rude', she should direct that to Mr Unsworth. The question she should ask is, `But how much more of taxpayers' money will you be wasting on your advertisements which ought properly to be paid for by the Australian Labor Party and authorised by Mr Stephen Loosley?'. The allegations are serious ones. In calling on the Federal Minister to investigate them, I do so because he has a responsibility in the area. I do so knowing the ethos of the mateship of the right wing Labor machine in New South Wales. It will be a test indeed for the Minister to have the courage to find if the records are available. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(7.55) —I rise tonight to bring to the Senate's attention with regret the recent death of Mr Fred Phillips who was the founder and National Director of an organisation called Bridging the Gap. Bridging the Gap is a non-profit organisation that was set up about seven years ago by Fred Phillips. In the seven years since its inception it has placed 12,000 young people in work throughout Australia. Fred Phillips was a remarkable man. He established this organisation seven years ago almost by chance. He was forced to retire from the business world after a heart attack and as part of the recuperation from that heart attack he was engaged in lengthy walking each day. In the course of these walks he came across the same group of young, lethargic youths out of work outside the local pinball shop. He would ask them what they were doing there. They said that there was no work and that they had given up looking for it. So he said to them, `If I find you work, would you be willing to take it?'. They said that they would. So Fred Phillips then canvassed the local businesses in his area, which was the Noble Park area of Melbourne. He approached 52 companies and asked an executive from each company to become a coach to help a young person get a job. He also nominated local teachers and asked them to nominate the slow learners and the low achievers in their senior classes. These young people were sent to the coaches who gave them direction and encouragement and either found them a job with their own company or found them a job amongst friends and associates. In the first three months of this activity he had filled 58 jobs and since then, as I have said, the organisation has not looked back and has now placed 12,000 young people in work. Bridging the Gap goes far beyond any service provided by other employment agencies and, in particular, far beyond that provided by the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). The program pursues a course of education, helping youth to find employment. As I said, it asks companies to act as volunteers in coaching, providing unemployed youth with advice, encouragement and direction. The program looks at young people to see whether they are equipped with the training, experience or the appearance and whether they are likely to be seen to be acceptable in employment. If a judgment was made that they were not, they would undertake a course with the Bridging the Gap organisation of two and a half hours or so during which time they would be taught such basic things as dressing properly, how to handle themselves in a work environment, punctuality and so on. Indeed, Fred Phillips found to his amazement on one occasion a large group of 18-year-olds who had never had a conversation with an adult. They had never shaken hands with an adult. So he taught them the basics of shaking hands and of being able to converse with adults without which employment prospects for those young people would be virtually nil. The Bridging the Gap organisation has, to my knowledge, received no government funding at all, certainly not from the Commonwealth Government. Fred Phillips believed that accepting money from government would even be counter-productive because the businessmen with whom he worked so closely in finding jobs would see government programs as being programs that they did not trust. It is very interesting to compare the cost of the Fred Phillips placement program with that of the Commonwealth Employment Service. The cost of placing people in jobs under the Bridging the Gap organisation has been approximately $50 a placement. The average cost under the Commonwealth Employment Service placement program is, I understand, of the order of $900 to $1,000. Indeed, when we look at some of the government programs for employment-for example, the now abandoned community employment program-the average cost of placing all unemployed young people in jobs under that program was calculated a couple of years ago at a staggering $23,000 a placement. So, without having received government assistance, the Bridging the Gap organisation has placed 12,000 people in jobs. Indeed, it has 11 or a dozen officers around Australia running its program on a shoestring. It has been successful because it concentrates on the importance of fostering enthusiasm and self-confidence in unemployed young people. It ensures that they are well presented and equipped with the right information and realistic expectations about what they can do and aim for. Fred Phillips should be honoured for his great achievements in the work that he has done under that program over the last seven years of his life before his untimely death. All of us could learn from the attitude that he adopted in dealing with and working with young people who were trying to find their place in society, and particularly their place in employment. He worked on the premise that the best form of welfare and the best morale booster for any young person is work, and that virtually any job, even if initially it was of low status and low pay, was better than no job. He was a great advocate of teaching that ethic in school. He found, as I think many of us have discovered, that that is an ethic that is not properly and adequately taught in schools today. A memorial to Fred Phillips could perhaps be a program to encourage the teaching of those values in our schools. Fred Phillips had some other ideas to which I believe we should give some thought. For example, he was a strong advocate of the concept of putting a limit on the period that any person can receive the unemployment benefit. That is the situation in many overseas countries. In this country the period is unlimited. I agree with Fred Phillips that continued payment of the dole or the unemployment benefit should be conditional upon the recipient's willingness to undergo training and to have his situation reviewed after a certain period. Those matters have been examined in the past, and I believe they should be examined again in the future. Fred Phillips was not as well known in the community as I believe he and his program deserved. Whilst expressing sadness at his passing, I welcome the opportunity to applaud the work that he did in order to bring it to the attention of the community. We must not allow that man's death to mean the end of the tremendous work that he has achieved in the Bridging the Gap organisation. The task of following him has been filled by Mr McNeill in South Australia. He has become the new national co-ordinator of the Bridging the Gap organisation. I hope that the community and government will follow the work of the Bridging the Gap organisation, not necessarily by providing financial assistance but at least by providing moral support. We should do what we can to assist the organisation's program, as it has proved itself to be of great value to many thousands of disadvantaged young people. That could be no greater memorial to any person. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(8.04) —This evening I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate the small and uniquely picturesque alpine township of Corryong in Victoria. The history of Corryong dates back to 1875 but the heritage of Corryong is the heritage of Australia, for Corryong well represents all that first attracted the early settlers to this land and motivated the pioneering spirit in Australia. Nestled in the foothills of the Snowy Mountains, it is indeed the gateway to the majestic mountains that are one of the grandest gifts that nature has given us. From those mountains have come Australia's greatest legends-legends of the men and women of the High Country; legends that depict the spirit of the nation and are well recorded in Australian art and literature. The legend of The Man from Snowy River, set to poetry by Banjo Paterson, combines all the qualities of the early, and indeed, the present, bush and mountain men. I believe that it is one of Australia's greatest stories. It is a Victorian story which proudly is still told today. It is true of late that there has been some serious debate concerning who was the Man from Snowy River, as depicted by Banjo Paterson. This debate has gained wide coverage, particularly in the Melbourne Sun. I wish to lend my support to the long held belief that Jack Riley was the mountain man who hailed from Snowy River on the Kosciusko side, the man that only Clancy stood his friend. The story of Jack Riley being the Man from Snowy River is a very reliable one. It is reliable because it has been passed down from father to son, neighbour to neighbour and told many times around the camp fire. I accept that while legends and stories may grow bigger as time rolls on, the core of truth of any great story such as this does not change. I would like to refer to an article in the Corryong Courier of 23 July 1914 which pays tribute to Jack Riley on the occasion of his death. It said: A fearless and dashing horseman in his young days, a first class hand among stock, and with all an Irishman's open handed generosity he was liked and respected by all who knew him. In bushcraft, even among the experts of the Murray, Gippsland and the Monaro, he stood alone, and it is said that some of his exploits form the basis of Paterson's well known verses on `The Man from Snowy River'. I would like to read to the Senate an article which contains the story that was told to Thomas Mitchell as a child by his father. The article states: My father (the late Walter Edward Mitchell) took Paterson on his first trip up Kosciusko. They spent the night with Jack Riley and Paterson (affectionately known as `Banjo') told me later that he was listening to Jack Riley's yarns that gave him the idea of the Man from Snowy River. That is good enough for me as evidence that Jack Riley was the Man from Snowy River. Today as we celebrate our bicentennial year, it is a time to reflect on our traditional beliefs and on the past Australians who shaped this nation. Banjo Paterson wrote of the Man from Snowy River, Henry Lawson wrote of the Drover's Wife and Francis Adams wrote of the Bushman. Today, whether we live in city or country, we can all personally relate to those hardships of our pioneering ancestors up to 200 years ago. We do not have to look too far back in time to know the effects of our natural environment on the Australian character. I remind my fellow senators of the impact of the Ash Wednesday bushfires of 1983 upon the people of Victoria. It is those same harsh realities faced by past and present Australians that have inspired the great qualities of a people strong in will, with a very fine spirit and a sense of mateship to be passed on through the generations to this very moment in time. I believe that this should be the pride of our bicentennial year and the foundation for our next 200 years. In conclusion, Ian Mudie gives us a picture of Australia as it is now and as it was 200 years ago. He said: Give my words sun and rain, desert and heat and mist, spring flowers, and dead grass, blue sea and dusty sky, song-birds and harsh cries, strength and austerity that this land has. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(8.09) —I thank those honourable senators who have contributed to the adjournment debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.10 p.m. The following papers were tabled. Customs Act-Notice 1988-No. 1-Specified rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 29 January 1988. Excise Act-Notice 1988-No. 1-Specified rate in respect to the diesel fuel rebate, dated 29 January 1988. Health Insurance Act-Statements(2) of particulars of Ministerial Determinations pursuant to sub-section 106aa, dated 15 February 1988. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act-Notice of Consents(4) pursuant to section 9.