Thursday, 25 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls should not be introduced in the absence of widespread community support. (3) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from seven citizens). 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 Knowles (from 318 citizens). Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition from 23 petitioners requesting that the Senate urge the Government to call on Iran to cease fire, in the terms of the United Nations resolutions, and dismiss the proposal to send Australian forces to the Persian Gulf. We, the undersigned call on the Federal Government to dismiss the Beazley proposal to send 20 R.A.N. divers to the Gulf. We believe this proposal should be rejected because it: (a) Contravenes Australian Foreign Policy of strict neutrality in regard to Iran-Iraq War. (b) Contravenes Australian Defence Policy of not committing Australian military forces in regions distant from our own. (c) Makes Australia appear subservient to U.S. interests. (d) Puts Australian lives at risk needlessly. (e) The Gulf area is complicated and risky enough without our involvement. Instead we call on the Federal Government to: (a) Urge all foreign forces to leave the Gulf area. (b) Call on Iran/Iraq to cease fire on the terms of the United Nations resolutions. Petitions received. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to make provision for and in relation to regular reviews by the Parliament of the delegated legislation of the Commonwealth. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the members of the Scout Association of Australia on the highly successful 16th World Jamboree held in January this year-the first official Bicentenary activity and the first World Jamboree to be held in the Southern Hemisphere; (b) acknowledges the outstanding contribution the limited number of paid staff and the army of voluntary leaders have made to Australia through the Jamboree; (c) recognises the value of such an event in promoting international understanding amongst the 15,000 teenage participants and in advertising Australia in the 73 countries participating; and (d) acknowledges the statement by the Scout Association that the estimated $40m of business generated by the Jamboree significantly assisted the Australian economy. Motion (by Senator Cook for Senator Button) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to establish a Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Cook) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(10.02) —I table the explanatory memorandum, and move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes to implement key elements of the Government's plan to restructure and revitalise Australia's textiles, clothing and foot- wear (TCF) industries. Details of the Government's plan were contained in a statement to Parliament on 5 June 1987 and this speech should be read in conjunction with that statement. In broad terms, the plan involves an industries development strategy, changes to import protection, and special measures to minimise adjustment pressure for those adversely affected by structural change. The plan also envisages the establishment of a Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority, as proposed in this Bill. The Authority is an integral part of the plan and will have the objectives of promoting the restructuring and revitalisation of the industries so that they become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on assistance by the Commonwealth. The main function of the Authority will be to implement the industries development strategy. Development of the new plan followed an Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) inquiry and report and extensive consultation with manufacturers, importers, retailers and trade unions. There was also detailed consultation with the TCF Industry Council. This process demonstrated not only a widespread recognition of the need for change, but also engendered a commitment on the part of the various industry participants to support and contribute to the success of the Government's new plan for these industries. The TCF industries have grown up behind significant import barriers and as a consequence have been insulated from the realities of operating in the international environment. The reductions in protection inherent in the new plan will progressively expose the industries to international competition but substantial changes in practices and attitudes are needed if the industries are to meet the challenges and opportunities afforded by a more open international environment. The industries development strategy will provide a vehicle for desirable change in the TCF industries. Broadly, the strategy involves four programs of support: a raw materials processing program; an industries efficiency program-covering programs for increased access to the National Industry Extension Service (NIES), plant and equipment modernisation and international competitiveness incentives-an industries infrastructure program; and an export development program. The raw materials processing program seeks to upgrade domestic processing of raw materials such as wool, cotton, hides and skins. For too long the Australian TCF industries have failed to capitalise on our rich resource base. Australia is the world's largest wool producer yet processes less than 5 per cent of the clip domestically to the final stage. Similarly, Australia is widely recognised as a world class producer of fine cotton but we domestically process only 10 per cent of our crop. The same applies to hides and skins where most of our output is exported in the raw state with only a small proportion tanned in Australia. Finance will be provided to the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) for investment in suitable modern and world scale projects aimed at significantly upgrading domestic processing in these areas. A number of studies into the feasibility of increased domestic processing have been commissioned. The plant and equipment modernisation program, the international competitiveness incentive program and the industries efficiency program all seek to improve the efficiency of existing TCF firms by addressing those internal factors which have limited their ability to compete with imports and on the international market. The plant and equipment modernisation program includes measures to assist yarn bounty recipients in undertaking plant and equipment modernisation aimed at improved efficiency, competitiveness and export orientation. Under the international competitiveness incentive program an applicant for assistance will be required to submit detailed plans outlining how it intends to substantially increase its export or import replacement production. Under the industries efficiency program the industries will be provided with greater access to the range of generally available measures directed at improving a firm's business efficiency through, for example, assistance with formulating and implementing business plans. Aspects of this program will be contracted to State industry departments for delivery via the National Industry Extension Service. The aim of the industries infrastructure program is to improve and co-ordinate the infrastructure support for the TCF industries, including training/skills upgrading, information services, research and development. A major study into the existing and future training arrangements for these industries will be undertaken. The study will be presented to myself and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training with recommendations on appropriate measures to upgrade the quality of the TCF work force. Under the export development program a number of measures will be implemented to support increased exports of TCF products. Aspects of this program will be contracted to Austrade which will provide a range of sector support measures such as overseas promotions, export education, etc. These programs of support will assist firms in overcoming impediments to their competitiveness as well as providing incentives and opportunities for firms to capitalise upon areas of opportunity. The measures will help to reduce the dependence of the industries on protective measures. In announcing reductions in import protection the Government was conscious of the concern within the industries over the possible employment impact. In order to minimise adjustment difficulties, the Government has developed a package of labour adjustment measures specifically developed to assist workers to become re-employed in jobs outside of the TCF industries. These measures took effect from 1 January 1988. The Government recognises that some communities and regional centres may experience short-term difficulties as a result of the plan, owing to the concentration of certain TCF firms within them. The TCF Development Authority, in consultation with the Office of Local Government and Local Communities, will monitor the impact of TCF adjustments on regional centres. The new plan is about building on the industries' strengths, skills and opportunities. It is about restoring dynamism to industries which have lost their competitive edge and ensuring the emergence of new and dynamic industries able to compete on the world market. It recognises that major changes in attitudes will be required and that they will have a greater bearing upon future success than changes in protection. I understand that many companies within the industries have, since the plan's announcement, initiated major investment projects designed to facilitate improved efficiency and competitiveness. I am encouraged by such developments which demonstrate that the Government's commitment to restructuring these industries is not misplaced. The widespread endorsement within the industries of the new TCF plan indicates that it is a serious attempt to overcome the problems facing the industries. Ultimately this will result in more secure industries that contribute more fully to net national wealth. I should say however that the industries cannot expect the plan to be immutable and that industry planning should take into account other factors such as macro-economic circumstances. I now turn to the TCF Development Authority as proposed by this Bill. The Authority's broad role will be to promote restructuring and revitalisation of the TCF industries so that they can become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on support by the Commonwealth. The Authority will be a catalyst for desirable change and will be actively encouraging those in the industries to take the necessary steps to improve their performance. The establishment of such a body was recommended by the TCF Industry Council in its consideration of post-1988 assistance arrangements for the industries. The Council saw the need for a specialised monitoring authority with responsibility for identifying the nature of changes occurring under the plan and with the provision for advisory powers to remedy any deficiencies in the plan's operations. I see the role of the Authority as being broader than that envisaged by the Council. While it will be important to ensure adequate oversighting of the plan, I consider the Authority's major function will be to administer the industries development strategy in a coordinated and cost effective manner, as it is the strategy which will promote those changes in attitudes necessary to the reinvigoration of the industries. The Government expects the TCF industries to demonstrate a commitment to make real efforts to improve their efficiency and reduce dependence on public support. Support provided under the industries development strategy will be conditional upon recipients making a commitment in both financial terms and in a preparedness to spend time on addressing those problems which have inhibited competitiveness or restrained development. Where employment reductions are involved, support will be conditional on recipients adopting a responsible labour management plan and minimising involuntary employment reductions. In providing support under the industries development strategy the Authority will consult with appropriate organisations to ensure that support is of most relevance to the Government's policy objectives. The Authority will develop and administer some measures as appropriate while in other cases contract the measures to outside bodies. Examples of the latter are the Australian Industries Development Corporation, Austrade and NIES. The Authority will be responsible for ensuring the industries are aware of the measures contained within the industries development strategy and will promote the plan. The Authority will have the flexibility, subject to my approval, to make changes between programs, including funding allocations, in the light of experience gained in their implementation. In this respect the Authority could also recommend on new initiatives should such a need be determined. The Authority will also monitor the effectiveness of the delivery mechanisms for a program and should it consider that the existing delivery body is not fulfilling the requirements expected of it, it may recommend changes. Changes in attitudes within the industries will be essential to ensuring the success of the new plan. A move away from a narrow inward-looking focus will be integral to the success of revitalising these industries. The Authority will be a catalyst in this process and will be initiating and holding discussions with major industry participants, acting as an `honest broker' if appropriate, encouraging desirable restructuring, the adoption of new techniques and processes, improved management practices, the development of new markets etc. The Authority will also be in a position to disseminate information on developments within the industries. The Authority will have contact will all sides of the industries including manufacturers, unions, retailers, importers and consumers. I am also conscious that the complexity of barrier protection arrangements can give rise to anomalies which may require administrative changes to ensure that they do not run counter to the intentions of the plan and that some body to recommend on such matters is desirable. Therefore the Authority will oversight the technical and administrative operations of the plan and provide advice on any administrative changes necessary to ensure that the plan is operating as intended. The Authority will also report on the operations of the plan and progress towards achievement of the Government's policy objectives. The Authority will be required to report annually to the Parliament. Provision is also made for the Authority to report to the responsible Minister either on its own initiative or on matters which he refers to it. Additionally, the Minister will be able to give directions to the Authority on the policies and practices it should adopt in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers. Any such direction will be laid before this House and the House of Representatives as well as being Gazetted. I would stress that any information provided to the Authority on a confidential basis is required to be treated as such. While the authority will be monitoring developments within the industries, it will not be intrusive and I envisage its information requirements will most likely be satisfied by statistical collections by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and discussions and periodic surveys, similar to those previously undertaken by the TCF Advisory Committee. In this respect the Authority will be developing an information base on the industries. Naturally those firms receiving support under the industries development strategy will need to provide feedback to the authority on developments arising from this support. The Authority, as part of its responsibilities, will also be responsible for conducting a major review of the operations of the plan by no later than mid-1992. The review will be broadly based and cover the operations of the entire plan including past and expected developments in the industries and progress towards achievement of the Government's policy objectives for the TCF industries. The review will also include a detailed assessment of the impact of the plan in regional centres where the textiles, clothing and footwear industries are an important employer. It will include a detailed assessment of the industries' efforts to improve their performance in such areas as efficiency and productivity, training of staff, developing export markets and in the management of any employment displacement that occurs. I would be concerned should the Authority find only limited progress in these areas. However, if the Authority believes that despite efforts by the industries to improve their competitiveness, the plan is likely to cause aggregate TCF production in value added terms to contract by more than fifteen per cent, or ten per cent, twenty per cent and twenty per cent for textiles, clothing and footwear respectively, the authority could at the time of the review, or in any subsequent report, make recommendations including a year's deferral of the phase down in penalty duties and that an anticipatory inquiry be initiated to establish a course of action which could be taken promptly in the event that future developments warrant. This provision is commonly referred to as the `safeguard mechanism' and was described in detail in my statement to Parliament in June 1987 Attachment E. In reaching its recommendations the Authority would take into account the degree to which expected contraction in production results from the withdrawal of major producers from domes- tic activity in favour of offshore sourcing, and whether the remainder of the relevant industry sector is likely to experience contraction above the specified benchmark levels. In this respect the requirement for a report from the Industries Assistance Commission before fundamental changes in the assistance arrangements for the industries are made is unaffected by this legislation. The Authority will be able to make recommendations on administrative changes necessary to ensure the integrity of the plan. The Government wishes to have the Authority operational as early as possible and appointments to the Authority will proceed as quickly as possible following passage of the legislation. The operation of the Authority will require close contact with those in the industries and for this reason it will be located in Melbourne. The Authority will be independent of the industries and will consist of up to six members with its own secretariat staff to provide support. Arrangements for recruiting staff to provide this support have already commenced. The Authority will operate for the duration of the assistance plan and will cease operating on the plan's schedule expiry date of 29 February 1996. The Government's policy for the TCF industries beyond 1996 will be determined following a further review by the IAC, prior to 1996. Financial Impact Statement The Budget allocation for the establishment of the Authority in 1987-88 is $1.2 million and for the programs is $5m in 1987-88. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Motion (by Senator Cook for Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Cook) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(10.05) —I table the explanatory memorandum and move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill makes provision for amendments to Commonwealth Government conservation legislation to clarify and strengthen the protection afforded under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (the `World Heritage Act'). The Bill amends the definition of `identified property', which is protected by the World Heri-tage Act, to follow more closely the format of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the `World Heritage Convention'). Protection against damage or destruction is extended to property which the Commonwealth Government believes may be of World Heritage value and which is subject to an Inquiry to determine World Heritage status. The Bill also makes provision for some other amendments to the World Heritage Act to rectify problems that have arisen with its operation since its enactment in 1983. These include the provision of a Ministerial power to appoint inspectors under the Act for the purpose of obtaining information concerning the making of proclamations and regulations or of determining possible breaches of the Act. Additionally, it is proposed that sections of the Act held invalid by the High Court in the Tasmanian dam case be repealed. The provisions in the Act regarding compensation are also to be simplified. The Bill also makes it clear that the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 does not apply to action taken under the World Heritage Act nor to any submission by Australia of a heritage property as suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List. Before examining the provisions of the Bill in detail, let me first explain what it is that makes World Heritage so important and, secondly, discuss the circumstances which make these proposed amendments imperative. The World Heritage Convention is the most important international expression of the need to protect and conserve the natural and cultural heritage for the benefit of the whole world. This Convention was adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its seventeenth session in Paris on 19 November 1972. The Convention came into force on 7 December 1975. It promotes co-operation among nations to protect areas and buildings which are of such outstanding universal value that their conservation is of concern to humanity generally. Australia was the seventh country to ratify the Convention in August 1974. Since then the number of parties to the Convention has steadily increased. 100 countries from all parts of the world are now Parties. The Convention is the world's most successful instrument for the promotion of heritage conservation. Parties to the Convention commit themselves to help in the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of World Heritage properties. In addition, the Convention provides an objective system for identifying those natural and cultural heritage properties within member countries which are of outstanding universal value for all the world. The Convention also establishes a list of such properties. This list is known as the `World Heritage List'. The Convention is intended to ensure that, unlike most of the seven wonders of the ancient world, properties on the World Heritage List will be preserved for all time. The conditions which have to be satisfied before any property is inscribed on the World Heritage List are extensive. First, the property must satisfy the definition of World Heritage specified in Articles 1 or 2 of the Convention. Secondly, nominations for listing must meet detailed criteria adopted by the World Heritage Committee (the policy and decision making body under the Convention) as part of its operational guidelines for the implementation of the Convention. In the case of natural heritage, nominations must also satisfy certain conditions of integrity. In assessing new nominations, the World Heritage Committee is assisted by professional organisations which provide impartial technical advice on the World Heritage nominations. The International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Centre for Conservation in Rome (ICCROM) are the advisory bodies for cultural sites, while the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) advises on natural properties. Normally, the expert advice provided by these bodies would be based not only on an analysis and evaluation of the written nomination against the criteria but also on an inspection and assessment of the nominated property itself. Often internationally acknowledged scientists are also invited to act as referees for a nomination related to the natural environment. Not all nominations are successful. Of the 63 nominations scheduled for consideration by the Committee at its 1987 meeting only 41, or approximately 65 per cent, were accepted for inscription on the World Heritage List. There are now 288 places on the World Heritage List. They include the Pyramids of Egypt, the Grand Canyon of the United States, the Taj Mahal of India, Chartres Cathedral in France and the Sagarmatha National Park (containing Mount Everest) in Nepal. Australian properties on the World Heritage List are the Great Barrier Reef, Stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park, the Willandra Lakes Region of Western New South Wales, the Lord Howe Island Group off the coast of New South Wales, the Australian East Coast Temperate and Sub-Tropical Rainforest Parks (the New South Wales rainforests), the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks and Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park. This Government has a record second to none in its commitment to the environment and to heritage conservation. The Australian community increasingly looks to the Commonwealth Government to continue this role, in particular in relation to Australian properties which form part of the World Heritage. In most cases, this is being achieved in close collaboration with the States and Territories. It is an unfortunate fact, however, that this is not always the case. The area known as the `Wet Tropical Rainforest of North-east Australia', nominated by Australia in December 1987 for inclusion in the World Heritage List, has been identified for a number of years both nationally and internationally as being of World Heritage value. Despite this, the Queensland Government continues to oppose the nomination. In the Commonwealth Government's opinion, there is no doubt that this area, also known as the North Queensland rainforests, will be an appropriate and deserving addition to the World Heritage List. Independent studies indicate that the rainforests conform to the definition of natural heritage in Article 2 of the Convention. Indeed, the best evidence suggests that they meet not only one but all four of the criteria set down for establishing outstanding universal value. The North Queensland rainforests contain the highest concentration of primitive flowering plant families on earth, are home to a high diversity of animal life including a number of threatened species, and hold important clues to the origin, evolution and migration of flowing plants. The region also has many features of outstanding natural beauty, with waterfalls, deep gorges, fast flowing rivers and mountainous peaks. The Government believes that the wet tropical rainforests also qualify for the World Heritage List on cultural grounds. The only remaining recognised Australian Aboriginal rainforest culture is found in the wet tropics. The area has been recommended for World Heritage nomination by the Australian Heritage Commission and is included in the IUCN's list of the world's most outstanding natural areas. As long ago as November 1984 the General Assembly of IUCN called upon the Australian and Queensland Government to ``overcome current difficulties'' and nominate the wet tropical rainforests to the World Heritage List. The area has been acclaimed by internationally recognised scientists from all over the world. Against this background the Queensland Government has consistently refused even to consider World Heritage nomination and has maintained that rainforest logging should continue. The Commonwealth Government had no option, therefore, but to nominate the area and ban rainforest logging. This course was essential to fulfil Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention. Even after the formal nomination by Australia, the Queensland Government has publicly stated that it will strongly resist changing its normal forestry management practices in North Queensland. While forestry operations in the North Queensland rainforests have presently ceased because of onset of the wet season, under normal practice, operations would resume in April of this year. In the Government's view such forestry operations would clearly damage or destroy the integrity of the nominated World Heritage area as a whole or particularly valuable features of it. The amended World Heritage Act will make it absolutely clear that the North Queensland rainforests are afforded interim protection under that Act pending a decision by the World Heritage Committee on whether to include them on the World Heritage List. The World Heritage Committee is the appropriate body to determine once and for all whether the North Queensland rainforests constitute natural heritage of outstanding universal value for all the world. The Committee will make that determination at its next meeting in November 1988. It will do so with the advice of independent experts who will have inspected and assessed the area and who will have discussed the matter with both the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments. Prior to that determination by the World Heritage Committee it is essential that the area be afforded protection under the Act. It would be ridiculous if the World Heritage Committee decided later this year to inscribe the North Queensland rainforests on the World Heritage List and Australia had allowed those same rainforests to be irreparably damaged during the year of nomination. If, in the unlikely event that the Committee agreed with Queensland and refused to inscribe either all or part of the area on the World Heritage List, then under the proposed amendments, protection under the Act would cease. I turn now to the Bill itself. As noted, the major consideration is the clarification and strengthening of the World Heritage Act. `Identified property', the property protected under the Act, is to be redefined to be more in line with the format of the Convention itself. Identified property would be property subject to any of the following: first, a Commonwealth inquiry to determine whether or not it is World Heritage; secondly, a World Heritage nomination by Australia; thirdly, World Heritage listing; or finally, if it is property which is World Heritage and which is declared by regulation to be identified property. In other words, the Act would follow the three stages of the World Heritage Convention: identification of property, nomination and listing. Interim protection would be afforded at each stage. This would cease, however, if the property ceased to be identified. The ultimate World Heritage test would be left to the appropriate and proper authority-the World Heritage Committee. The existing provision to identify property by regulation is to be retained although in such cases protection will depend for its efficacy on the establishment, as a matter of fact, that an area is of outstanding universal value within the meaning of the Convention. Another provision to strengthen the Act is a Ministerial power to appoint inspectors. Inspectors' powers will relate to obtaining information relevant to making a proclamation or regulations under the Act or determining whether an unlawful act has been, is being or is likely to be committed. The circumstances in which inspectors may enter places to exercise their powers are restricted under the Act. Inspectors may enter land or buildings only if they obtain the consent of the person in charge or a Judge's warrant or if there is an urgency requirement. An inspector has no authority in any circumstances to enter a person's home or dwelling. It is not the Government's intention to take away or diminish the rights of private citizens. The proposed amendments also drastically simplify the procedure to be followed when the operation of the Act results in an acquisition of property within the meaning of paragraph 51 (31) of the Constitution. There will be two stages only: negotiation on a reasonable amount of compensation; and, failing agreement, determination of the amount by the Federal Court. It is also proposed to repeal sections of the Act held invalid by the High Court in the Tasmanian Dam case. These are paragraphs 9 (1) (a) to (g) and sub-section 9 (2). Part III of the Bill relates to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. The Bill makes it clear that the Impact Act does not apply, and is taken never to have applied, to action taken under the World Heritage Act nor to any submission by Australia of a heritage property as suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List. Finally in Part IV of the Bill, the existing Proclamation and regulations under the Act relating to the North Queensland rainforests are taken never to have had effect. It is the Government's intention to seek a new Proclamation and regulations in identical terms to be promulgated pursuant to the amended legislation. These provisions, along with clause 5, are designed to place the protection of the North Queensland rainforests during 1988 on a more appropriate footing in the light of their nomination in December 1987 for inscription on the World Heritage List. The amended legislation would enable the rainforests to be protected on the basis that the World Heritage Committee is considering the nomination. The repeal of the Proclamation and regulations will not weaken the protection of the rainforests. It is also not intended to affect any accrued rights that there might be. Mr President, this Bill strengthens the protection afforded by the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act to follow more closely the format of the World Heritage Convention. It should also be seen as a measure of the Commonwealth Government's determination to protect World Heritage, particularly the wet tropical rainforests of North-east Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.06) —I 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 makings 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 of 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 the 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) to 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. As I indicated when giving notice of these resolutions yesterday, they are in substantially the same form as the draft resolutions I tabled in the Senate almost 12 months ago, in conjunction with the Senate's consideration of what became the historic Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. The purpose of my tabling the resolutions in draft was to foreshadow the totality of the proposals recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and to enable consideration of their effects before the Senate-and, I hope the House of Representatives-made a commitment to enshrine them as parliamentary-sanctioned obligations. Another important purpose of tabling the resolutions in draft was to enable senators to examine them at leisure, and suggest refinements or amendments to them. As a result of that consideration, Senator Durack and I have had discussions and he does propose some amendments to clarify certain matters and to make some substantive changes. As I indicated yesterday, I embrace those proposals. I think they make more workable and less cumbrous some of the original proposals, as well as possibly being a little less expensive in their application and operation. Senator Durack himself can explain those and indicate to the Senate what it is all about. The details of the resolutions which I asked the Senate to adopt are contained in the extensive explanatory notes that I tabled last year and again when giving notice yesterday. I think, rather than spend any more time now indicating what the draft resolutions are all about, since senators have had them on their plates for so long, I will simply answer any points that might be raised in debate when I reply at the end of that debate. I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.08) —As Senator Gareth Evans has indicated, these resolutions proposed by him dealing with parliamentary privilege have been lying on the table of the Senate-if not actually physically, nevertheless in spirit-for a long time. We have been told about them. I suppose that there has been an election since they were first introduced, if I remember rightly, but they have been available to honourable senators for consideration for nearly 12 months. They follow the very great and very worthy review of parliamentary privilege which was set in train some time ago in the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. That Joint Committee reported in October 1984 and made a large number of recommendations in relation to this important question. Some of those recommendations required an Act of Parliament. That Act was passed last year and is known as the Parliamentary Privileges Act. Other recommendations of the Joint Select Committee require amendments to Standing Orders or simply the passage of resolutions by both Houses of Parliament. We are now dealing with those recommendations of the Committee which would simply require resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. The draft resolutions are being proposed firstly in the Senate. It is certainly intended that they should also be introduced and passed in a similar form in the House of Representatives and I hope that will be done shortly. The combined effect of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, the resolutions and any amendments that may be needed to Standing Orders will give substantial effect to the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. Parliamentary privilege was long overdue for thorough attention in this way. I place on record my appreciation of the work that was done by the members of the Joint Select Committee and officers of the Senate. I cannot speak personally about the work of the officers of the House of Representatives but the officers of the Senate, who have played an important part in the whole process of review, deserve gratitude. The draft resolutions that Senator Gareth Evans has moved cover a number of areas. The first is: Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses. The proposals that are now before us and the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee follow very much and draw very heavily upon the development of rules for the protection of witnesses by Senate committees since the Senate embarked upon its new committee system in the early 1970s. From time to time Senate committees have had to engage in investigation of disputed facts, maybe involving allegations of very serious misconduct, which has required them to develop rules of this kind. The traditional parliamentary committee has received what is called evidence but it is generally in the shape of written submissions which are a mixture of facts, opinion, value judgments, recommendations and all the rest of it and in a technical legal sense it is not evidence. But when there is an investigation of allegations of misconduct by somebody the same or similar rules for the protection of witnesses need to be developed as those for the protection of witnesses in proceedings in court. I do not believe that a parliamentary committee is a very suitable body to determine such allegations of serious misconduct. In fact, I do not think parliamentary committees are proper bodies to determine facts which are in dispute unless they are facts of a general kind such as economic statistics or matters of that kind. Nevertheless, I concede that parliamentary committees are required from time to time to embark upon these activities. From time to time in this Senate we have to decide whether we will give them that task but certainly if they get that task it is very important that there should be clear rules for the protection of witnesses. There are very detailed provisions about that here which, by and large, I support. However, I wish to move amendments to certain resolutions and I seek leave to move those amendments together. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —I move the following amendment to resolution 1: (1) Paragraph (1), after `appear', insert `(whether or not the witness was previously invited to appear)'. (2) Paragraph (2), after `made', (first occurring) insert `(whether or not an invitation to produce documents has previously been made)'. These amendments make it clear that a committee is not obliged to issue an invitation to a witness to appear or produce documents before issuing a summons if the committee decides that a summons is warranted. This is designed to cope with a case where a witness may be thought to be likely to destroy documents for the purpose of preventing the committee from conducting its inquiry. It would be an exceptional issue. It provides for the proper rule that witnesses should be invited to attend in the first place. There could be exceptional cases, however, and the amendments clear up this point. I move: (3) Paragraph (15), leave out all words after `appears'. (4) Leave out paragraph (16). These amendments deal with paragraph (15) and paragraph (16) of resolution 1, the question of the reimbursement of costs, including legal costs. Paragraph (15) of resolution 1 states that a witness `may make application for the reimbursement of legal costs' and that a committee `shall give consideration to reasonable reimbursement of such costs'. For a start, I do not think the committee has the power to decide whether witnesses are to get costs. It is the power of the President to decide that. I take the view that legal costs should not be met for anybody-in courts, royal commissions or Parliament-unless there is a need. It is difficult enough for governments to meet the demands for legal aid by people who really need legal aid. It would be quite inappropriate to reimburse the legal costs of people who were not in need. I recollect very clearly my first experience of sitting on a Senate committee when I first entered the Senate in 1971. I was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. A series of very well-heeled people appeared before the Committee, always with leading silks in attendance. It would be absurd for such costs to be paid. The same applies to the reimbursement of expenses people may have. If a case of need were brought forward, a committee could give consideration to it and make a recommendation to the President. The way it appears in resolution 1 means that it is open slather for people to be reimbursed which is, in my view, not warranted. Resolution 2 deals with procedures for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee. Very important new procedures are being laid down. The Privileges Committee is an extraordinary body from a lawyer's point of view because it is the investigator of a matter, the prosecutor of any complaint it thinks is justified and it acts as judge and jury as well. So the Committee does really need to have much better procedures laid down for it not only for the protection of witnesses but, in this case, for the protection of people who may be the subject of investigation or complaint and, of course, a judgment about their breach of privilege. This has been the subject of major recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and the proposed resolutions by and large give effect to the recommendations. I support them except for the two amendments, (5) and (6), which I now move to resolution 2: (5) Paragraph (3), leave out ``cross-examine'', insert ``examine''. (6) Leave out paragraph (11), insert the following paragraph: ``(11) The Committee may recommend to the President the reimbursement of costs of representation of witnesses before the Committee. Where the President is satisfied that a person would suffer substantial hardship due to liability to pay the costs of representation of the person before the Committee, the President may make reimbursement of all or part of such costs as the President considers reasonable.''. The first amendment deals with paragraph (3). It is really only a technical amendment, a drafting amendment to make it clear that a witness against whom some adverse evidence is given may make application to have other witnesses called. This is already provided for, but it provides for only cross-examination whereas the witnesses ought to be able to be examined as well as cross-examined. The other amendment is again on legal costs and is in lieu of paragraph (11). It sets out the principle which I have indicated earlier, about the right of legal aid in relation only to need. There have been some very major changes to the power of the Privileges Committee under the Parliamentary Privileges Act which have limited the notion of contempt in an important way. The old and troublesome grounds of what were called defamatory contempts, that is saying nasty things about members of parliament, have been removed. That is an outmoded matter and it has now been removed, so a lot of the problems that the Privileges Committee has had in the past have been removed. A couple of these new resolutions about procedures should greatly improve the whole problem of dealing with contempt of parliament. Proposed resolution 3 sets out the criteria to be taken into account when determining matters of contempt, and that adds further to the protection people have from being ill-treated by the Parliament. Proposed resolution 4 deals with the criteria to be taken into account by the President in determining whether a matter of privilege should be given precedence. I pass over resolution 5, to which there are a number of amendments. Resolution 6 sets out what we believe are the major matters of contempt, and that is another useful indication to the public of just what parliamentary contempt amounts to. I think all these matters that I have been dealing with-resolution 7, resolution 8 and so on all relate to matters of privilege and contempt-are very important in protecting the rights of people who may fall foul of the Parliament in some way or order. It has been deplorable in the past that Parliament has proceeded in the way it has in exercising the vast powers it has without having proper rules in place. This is one of the great triumphs of the Joint Select Committee's work and it is now being followed by the Parliamentary Privileges Act and these resolutions. Ordinary people, the citizens of this country, now have some rights against the Parliament when it exercises its great powers in this area. Turning to the last matter which is dealt with by these amendments, I move the following amendments to resolution 5: (7) Paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (c), leave out ``frivolous or vexatious'', insert ``frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character''. (8) Leave out paragraphs (2) to (10) inclusive, insert the following paragraphs: (2) The Committee may decide not to consider a submission referred to it under this resolution if the Committee considers that the subject of the submission is not sufficiently serious or the submission is frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character, and such a decision shall be reported to the Senate. (3) If the Committee decides to consider a submission under this resolution, the Committee may confer with the person who made the submission and any Senator who referred in the Senate to that person. (4) In considering a submission under this resolution, the Committee shall meet in private session. (5) The Committee shall not publish a submission referred to it under this resolution or its proceedings in relation to such a submission, but may present minutes of its proceedings and all or part of such submission to the Senate. (6) In considering a submission under this resolution and reporting to the Senate the Committee shall not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the Senate or of the submission. (7) In its report to the Senate on a submission under this resolution, the Committee 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, and shall not make any other recommendations. (8) A document presented to the Senate under paragraph (5) or (7): (a) in the case of a response by a person who made a submission, shall be succinct and strictly relevant to the questions in issue and shall not contain anything offensive in character; and (b) shall not contain any matter the publication of which would have the effect of: (i) unreasonably adversely affecting or injuring a person, or unreasonably invading a person's privacy, in the manner referred to in paragraph (1); or (ii) unreasonably adding to or aggravating any such adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy suffered by a person.''. I think one ought to look at resolution 5 in conjunction with resolution 9, `Exercise of freedom of speech'. Apart from the matter I have just mentioned, there is another great deficiency in the protection of citizens in this country against what may happen in Parliament arising from our freedom of speech here as senators or members. Under the Bill of Rights and under section 49 of the Constitution, which adopts those privileges of Parliament, which existed when the Parliament was created in 1901, we have the very precious right of freedom of speech which cannot be called into question outside the Parliament. Unfortunately, from time to time, that right is abused and people use the privilege to make not only very savage but also, in some cases, unproven or even unprovable allegations about people outside the Parliament. Members of Parliament have their own right to handle such allegations and reply to them, but outside the Parliament there is no avenue. Ordinary citizens cannot sue us because of the privilege we have. They can make Press statements, but it is in the hands of the Press as to whether they are published in full or published at all. I suppose they can write to the President or the Speaker, but they have no formal right of reply. The Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended a right of reply. It gave a great deal of thought to it and made some very clear recommendations. Those recommendations are taken up in resolution 5. As I said, resolution 9 is really a caution to senators that, before they use their valuable right of freedom of speech in the Senate, they should think very deeply about what they are going to say. That can only be a pious resolution that we address to each other, and I have no doubt that from time to time it will not be observed. That is why I think it is desirable to have a further protection; namely, to accord people outside this chamber a right of reply which can be incorporated in Hansard, under very strict conditions. That is set out in resolution 5. I have a number of amendments to that resolution which I think would tighten it up and bring it more into line with the actual recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I do not propose to describe them. How the right of reply would work is set out clearly enough in the resolution moved by Senator Evans and my amendments to resolution 5 have been circulated. I want to emphasise some of the major features of the right of reply. If my amendments are accepted-I understand from Senator Gareth Evans that they will be-a person who claims that his reputation has been adversely dealt with by a senator may have a right of reply, in written form, to the President. It must not be in an offensive form and it should not raise a frivolous or vexatious matter. If the President is satisfied of that, he shall refer the matter to the Senate Privileges Committee. That Committee will consider the matter and, if it is satisfied that it is in accordance with the conditions that have been laid down, will settle the reply and recommend that it be incorporated in Hansard. The Privileges Committee is specifically prevented from making any judgment as to the truth of the allegations the senator has made or the truth of the matters raised in the reply. It is not to judge that at all; it is not to perform any such function. It is simply to make sure that the right of reply is not made when it concerns only a frivolous matter or is not of sufficient importance. It is to make sure that the right of reply is couched in language which is not offensive and is moderate and that the whole thing is such that we do not have voluminous replies incorporated in Hansard. They are the essentials of this right of reply and the procedures which the Privileges Committee is required to follow in determining whether this right of reply should be finally incorporated in Hansard. For those reasons, I have pleasure in supporting the proposed resolutions, subject to the amendments which I have moved and which have been circulated to honourable senators. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.33) —The Australian Democrats support the proposed resolutions that are before the Senate. In our discussions, it became evident that there was a great deal of support for this type of clarification and codification. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that originally operated, if I can remember back that far, under the Fraser Government and reconvened when the Hawke Government came to power, I recall that these matters were discussed at great length. I think it is very important, not only for members of the public but also for senators, to be aware of these propositions. Hopefully, in the time that these proposed resolutions have been available to us-and that is a great deal of time now-senators have carefully considered the implications of the proposed resolutions. The legislation which codified the other areas and which we have already considered was well received by those people who have an interest in this area. I suppose that my one regret in relation to the passage of that legislation is that the media, which previously made a great deal of noise about privilege from time to time, studiously ignored the fact that we had done anything with regard to the types of complaints that they had made in the past. I suppose it is a bit much to expect, when the Parliament does move in these matters in a constructive way-it may seem a slow way to some-that some acknowledgment might have been given. I suppose that that is hoping for a world which does not exist. I hope that the public and the media will pay some attention to these resolutions. We have pursued quite significantly in the first resolution the support that should be provided to witnesses who appear before committees. This has been one of the areas of contention with the media, particularly when reporters, publishers or others get hauled before the Committee of Privileges. The Parliament has sought to move in the direction of providing some support to witnesses and to regularise the situation for witnesses so that they know what the ground rules are. Previously, although Senate committees operated very much in the fashion set down here, the House of Representatives committees did not. Joint committees often had to come up with a set of rules to deal with these matters and often in recent times have had to rely on the precedents and procedures set by Senate committees. Indeed, as late as last week I was involved with a joint committee that was confronted with some of these matters. I suggested that we follow the procedures the Senate committees had followed to date to deal with witnesses and that was accepted. Obviously, to continue to engage in this particular exercise is not the way in which to operate and in future all committees will have available to them the start we are making with these resolutions. I do not want to claim that this will be the end of the exercise. The Parliament has taken this matter in hand after 87 years of inaction. Let us hope that now that it has actually got moving on this matter it will not let it drop and will continue to look carefully at these matters and revise and update them and, hopefully, extend the types of protections that might be available to witnesses. I draw honourable senators' attention in particular to paragraph (9) of resolution 1, which states: A chairman of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee's inquiry . . . When one is on a committee, or when one is sitting in on a committee as we in the Senate are permitted to do, one is often struck by the irrelevant questions that seem to float around. There are many areas that, when witnesses come before us, one would like to inquire into. However, I think it is only reasonable for witnesses to be asked questions on matters which are relevant to the inquiry. In that way I think the witnesses will be in a better position to deal with the matter and they will feel that their contribution to the inquiry is more pointed and specified. I think some witnesses must have been very mystified in the past. I remember sitting in on a committee last year where, for half an hour the witnesses were questioned on a topic which I considered did not have any relevance to the committee's inquiry. When I asked the member about this afterwards, he said that he was simply pursuing an interest that had nothing to do with the inquiry but he thought that since the witness was there he might as well pursue it. I do not think that is good enough. I hope that senators and members, in looking at these resolutions, will take them on board and will act in accordance with them. Paragraph (9) states that it is the chairman's duty to draw members' attention to the relevance of their questions. I will make a few comments on some of the items contained in paragraph (12) which I think are specifically very important. Paragraph (12) states: 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 . . . I think that is also very important. There have been some discussions in the committees that I have been on as to what we can do with this evidence and whether or not it is permissible to take it out of the transcript of evidence. I think this is an interesting direction to a committee that it may engage in that activity and that that is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable way to deal with evidence which is not pertinent to the committee but which is the result of some witness deciding to bucket somebody else outside and using parliamentary privilege to do so. I had occasion to sit in on a committee some years ago at which precisely that happened. Finding a way to deal with that matter proved extremely embarrassing for all concerned. I do not think it was ever considered that parliamentary privilege should be provided to non-elected members of this community to allow them to defame and libel other members of the community at large while giving evidence on some matter before a parliamentary committee. If a committee considers that evidence of that type is going to be given, I think that, in view of the direction given in other parts of the resolution, the committee should meet in private session so that the person who is about to engage in that particular activity at least does not have the opportunity of getting that evidence onto the public record, regardless of what the committee does with its own evidentiary material. I think that that provides a safeguard. It provides a safeguard for people outside who in the past have been attacked by non-elected members of the community using parliamentary privilege. That is an area that some people-certainly the media-have tended to neglect. Since in many cases it may very well have been the media that was making use of that particular loophole, I suppose that may be why it neglected it. I turn now to a couple of other matters, particularly resolution No. 4 which deals with the criteria to be taken into account by the President in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege shall be given precedence of other business. Paragraph (a) reads: 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 . . . It rightly and properly goes on to say that we should not be dealing with trivial matters, and then it uses the somewhat pompous phrase `or unworthy of the attention of the Senate'. I think people probably know what we are getting at; I do not think we need express it in quite so pompous a fashion. The point there is that when a member of the Press decides to describe all members of parliament as drunkards, as has occurred in recent times-the other place got so affronted by the matter that it raised it as a matter of privilege-the Senate quite rightly decides to ignore the whole matter as being so trivial-- Senator Puplick —Typical House of Representatives. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, typical House of Representatives. Senator Durack —Was it true? Senator MACKLIN —If it were true, it should have been best left alone. Really it is a matter which is of no interest to us; we have far more important things to do with our time. I am very pleased to note that the Parliament intends to rise above getting itself involved in discussions in the Parliament about those types of attacks. I think that by disposing of that type of discussion we will be able to concentrate-Senator Durack made a point of this, and I do also-on those matters which do constitute contempt of the operations of the Parliament and which seek to obstruct the operations of the chamber. We will be able to concentrate on attempts to bribe or influence the activities of a member and those activities which really constitute contempts of the chamber and of the parliamentary process. By getting rid of the trivial, we will be able to highlight those other areas. Mercifully enough, at least in this Parliament, since Federation we have been almost free of that type of activity. Let us hope that that situation continues. Nevertheless, the Parliament must have the power and give expression to the power that ensures that it will not be intimidated in its operations; and members of parliament should not be intimidated in giving expression to what they believe to be correct. As a member of Amnesty International, I attended a meeting of that organisation earlier this morning. When preparing some notes on this matter, I reflected on how interesting it is that in recent times other parliaments, even those that operate in the Commonwealth tradition, have had what really amounts to a massive contempt visited upon them with the gaoling of their members basically for expressing in the parliament and in their electorates views which quite rightly they should be permitted to express in a free, open and democratic country. So we should be thankful that this country has a strong tradition in this area; and we should work, as this particular set of resolutions does, towards protecting and enhancing the core of that operation. The reality is that it is necessary that genuine contempts of the Parliament be dealt with vigorously. I hope that now we have the Act dealing with privilege and shortly, I hope, these resolutions passed by both Houses, we shall cease to deal with people by slapping them over the wrist with a feather. I hope that having cleared away the trivialities, we will treat any matters that come before us with due seriousness and, if necessary, operate with vigour. Ultimately that is the only way to protect the real privileges of the Parliament which, in turn, are to protect the interests of the people of this country. In regard to resolution 5 relating to the protection of persons referred to in the Senate, I believe that it is important, as Senator Durack has said, to make note of the fact that we shall provide for the first time an avenue whereby people who have been attacked in this place can have a set course for redress. They may not always get it, it may not be judged to be appropriate, but for the first time we are setting down an avenue by which people can know of, and can go about seeking, some redress if they feel that they have been slandered, derided or injured, as the resolution says, with regard to: . . . occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person; . . . That is an interesting departure from previous traditions in this place. It shows that the Parliament itself is growing up in regard to how it will treat the rights of individual citizens and is acknowledging for the first time by resolution that those citizens who are affronted by having their names dragged around in debate in either chamber of this Parliament will have some means of redress. This is a good and proper avenue. I well remember the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) arguing strongly in the committee for this type of approach. He is to be commended for that, as are other members of the committee who have given a great deal of support to this matter. It is a start. One hopes that it will be recognised as such and that at a later stage, after there has been experience of the operation of these provisions, they can be fine tuned and possibly taken further. I am happy that at present we have progressed down this track. Let us hope that in the light of experience we may be able to give further protection to people who are attacked in this place without in any way-and in this is an important caveat-limiting or taking away from the rights of members of this place to speak freely on any matter they believe needs to be brought up in the interests of the people of Australia. Resolution 6 relates to matters constituting contempt and I support Senator Durack's remarks. Interference with the Senate is a proper matter to be dealt with in terms of contempt. The resolution deals with influencing senators and where, for example, senators are seeking benefits. It also applies to the molestation of senators, which does not happen very often. Senator Puplick —I don't know. Senator Richardson has a different view about that, I think. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, some Ministers recently have had strong views about that. Then the resolution deals with disturbance of the Senate, which happens from time to time. In the new chamber I am not sure whether people will have as much opportunity to create a disturbance. The resolution mentions the serving of writs in this place, and also false reports of proceedings. The Press may take note of that. It goes on to state: A person shall not wilfully publish any false or misleading report of the proceedings of the Senate . . . I am not quite sure how that ever will be carried out, but let us hope that the Press will pay attention to it. If the people representing Australian Associated Press who sit long-sufferingly in the gallery at any stage have falsely given misleading reports of the Senate, at least they have always responded rapidly to correct those reports. In fact, in the time that I have been here, which is certainly not anywhere near as long as the Deputy President has been here, I have never noticed in terms of at least those types of reports that there is any wilful publishing of false or misleading reports about the proceedings of the Senate. Such reports as have been made, I think, were made in all reasonableness because of an inability to follow what was going on in this place. That cannot be held to be a crime since on occasions I have noticed that most senators in this place have not been able to follow what is going on, either. On one of those particular occasions I remember that half of the Labor Party sat on one side of the chamber and the other half sat on the other because they did not know on which side they should be voting. The other matter I wish to raise is the exercise of the freedom of speech. This particular resolution does nothing more than direct senators' attention to what they ought to consider when they are going to mention people or firms in such a way that detriment could be caused to that person or firm. Senators have to pay very close attention to resolution 9. I hope that they will. I believe that on almost every occasion they do so. There is a bit of a myth, I think, floating around somewhere in the community that people's names or the names of firms are bandied about in this place on a daily basis. That is not the case. Only rarely is it the case that particular individuals are attacked. When that occurs in the future the hope is that senators will have taken note of the five points contained in resolution 9 (1) and act according to their own consciences on these matters. I indicate on behalf of my colleagues that the Australian Democrats will be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Durack. I think that they clarify these matters, and if these resolutions now go forward to the House of Representatives, where I hope they will be passed, we will have moved a step towards fulfilling our constitutional role to define clearly the privileges of this and the other chamber. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.53) —I rise to indicate my opposition to re-solution 5, which relates to the protection of persons referred to in the Senate. I should indicate, first of all-and I do not know what the position is so far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned-that on this side of the chamber this matter is traditionally a free vote; there is not a caucused or party room view on these matters. We are all entirely at liberty to express our individual views and vote accordingly as individuals on matters which relate to Standing Orders and to questions of privilege. Indeed, honourable senators may recall that when the Privileges Bill was before the chamber, Senator Jessop and I alone voted against a clause of that Bill which related to the expulsion of members of Parliament. In exactly the same way I see an issue arising under this question of the protection of persons referred to in the Senate as a further winding back of the privileges of this Parliament and the creation of a situation in relation to persons who have been referred to in the Senate which I think is entirely unsatisfactory. The first thing that has to be said about resolution 5 is that it amounts to some sort of admission of failure on the part of the Parliament. It suggests, by implication, that the Parliament has not provided methods of redress for persons who think themselves to have been improperly dealt with or, indeed, that somehow there are large numbers of people in this position who are aggrieved and want something done. I am glad to see Senator Harradine sitting here in the chamber. I well recall that, when I first came to this Parliament, there was an ongoing debate between Senator Harradine and Senator Justin O'Byrne in which Senator O'Byrne made a series of accusations about persons in Tasmania-persons connected with the trade union movement, I recall. On a number of occasions the rights of those individuals were more than adequately protected by the fact that Senator Harradine got up and responded on their behalf. Senator Macklin —Oh! Senator PUPLICK —I can understand Senator Macklin's outrage that people should come in here and defend the rights of others. Defending the rights of human beings, as distinct from defending the rights of Antarctic seals, is always difficult for the Australian Democrats. The point at issue, however, is that Senator Macklin has attempted to say in the debate today that it is only by the passage of resolution 5 that we will be creating-his words were-an avenue for the first time whereby people could have the record set straight or could have a right of reply somehow brought before the Parliament. That is simply not correct. There has always been a method whereby people are able to approach any other member of this place or the other place and state their case. If they are able to persuade a member or senator that their case is one which is worthy of a response being made, that response always has been made. I do not know of anybody who has been put in a position where that avenue of redress was not available to him. The resolution is attempting to set up a very convoluted system. May I, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy President, just seek from the Minister an indication that he is, in fact, accepting Senator Durack's amendments to this matter and then I will address myself purely to Senator Durack's formula rather than the original. Senator Gareth Evans —Yes, I am. Senator PUPLICK —I address myself purely to the scheme as it would exist under Senator Durack's proposal. The first point of contention will be, of course, that the Privileges Committee has the power to second-guess the President. Resolution 1, which is only affected in a minor way by Senator Durack's amendment, requires the President to be satisfied that the matter is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous or vexatious or offensive in character as to make it inappropriate. So the President has to satisfy himself of that. One of the powers of the Privileges Committee is then to say that the President was wrong; under paragraph (2) in Senator Durack's formula the Committee may come to the decision that the subject of the submission is not sufficiently serious or the submission is frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character and shall, therefore, not proceed. Rather than accept prima facie that the President has decided that it should be referred to, we have a situation where the President has to make that decision. The Committee can then say, `The President, of course, was wrong. The President said it ought to go forward because it was not frivolous, vexatious or offensive, but we have not determined that it is frivolous, vexatious or offensive'. I think in a procedural sense, if the President is satisfied, it should not be open to the Committee to lay aside the determination of the President in that particular matter. I think that is grounds of unnecessary conflict and of unnecessary potential embarrassment for the President if he believes the matters is of sufficient character that the Privileges Committee ought to look at it and the Privileges Committee then puts that to one side. Senator Macklin —But the Committee may get further evidence on which it makes that decision, surely? Senator PUPLICK —That is not the way I read it. Paragraph (2) says that the Committee may decide not to consider it. It is only if the Committee decides to consider it that under paragraph (3), if the Committee decides to consider, the Committee may confer. In other words, the Committee has to make the judgment to proceed in the matter before it goes through with the process of conferring with the person who made the submission or any senator who referred in the Senate to that person. I think that there is some ambiguity in exactly what is meant here by `confer'. I know that it replaces a far more rigid form of taking evidence and submissions which was in Senator Evans's original proposals but, again, I think it unclear. I think it to be a source of some considerable potential confusion. We have in paragraph 7 (b) of Senator Durack's amendments another sticking point: whether, if there is to be a response, it will be published by the Senate or incorporated in Hansard. I am not altogether sure whether publication by the Senate or incorporation in Hansard then becomes a judgment of relative worth or value: should some things be published merely or should they be incorporated? If there is no difference, why is it put in that fashion? The next question therefore becomes: what is the status of that statement? Having been a statement of a person agreed to by that person and the Committee of Privileges, does it attract to itself, once it is published in Hansard, the privilege of the Parliament? I presume that it does. I presume that, having appeared in Hansard, it has attached to it some degree of privilege. So here is a statement made by a person who is not an elected member of the Parliament which has attracted to it the privilege of the Parliament. Senator Macklin was very clear in saying that he had some problems which related to the testimony of witnesses before committees, with the extension to non-elected persons of the right of privilege which derived when a person was giving evidence or making a statement before a parliamentary committee. Yet, presumably, that privilege is now to be extended to a person whose statement has been approved by the Committee of Privileges for incorporation in Hansard. I say this will invite the Committee of Privileges to start doing something which I believe it has never previously done, and that is, it will invite it to start to divide along party lines when the issue concerned is of political moment. Let us take a hypothetical situation in which Senator Walsh has, hypothetically, abused some member of the public and that person has made a submission to the President that he has been traduced and that he ought to have the right of reply, and the President has referred that matter to the Committee of Privileges. We then have a situation in which the Australian Labor Party members and the non-Labor members have a substantive question put before them which relates to a political judgment between a Minister and somebody who perhaps happens to be a member of the finance committee of the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party of Australia. Although the resolution makes it quite clear that the Committee shall not make a judgment about the truth or otherwise of the matter concerned-meaning, in effect, that provided the terms are agreed on it does not have to put a statement of truth on the part of the individual who is making a reply-that individual, under this resolution, is perfectly capable of submitting a statement which is a pack of lies and having it incorporated in Hansard under privilege. That is what is possible. The person may make a statement which is not offensive or abusive but which is absolutely untrue in response to a statement made and that statement will be adjudged by the Committee of Privileges to fall within the tests that are put down in 8 (b) of Senator Durack's amendment. It may be fundamentally untrue and incorporated in Hansard with privilege attracted to it. Unlike the statement of the honourable senator, which is capable of being tested by resolution, by question, by motion, that statement by the person in reply is not capable of being tested by the way in which we operate in this chamber. It will be there. A statement made by a Minister, by the President or by any senator can be challenged within this chamber. We can move motions. We can ask questions. We can debate the issue and we can see whether there is a response. So if I get up and make some statement about Dr Edelsten, as has been the case in the past, and people want to challenge this they are perfectly capable of challenging me to show the evidence, to defend the propositions that I put in the chamber. But the statement which is incorporated by an individual through this mechanism-which may, as I said, be absolutely untrue, and which attracts privilege to it by being published in Hansard-is not capable of being so tested, and I object to that. I object to the extension of privilege to non-elected persons in this way in exactly the same vein that Senator Macklin objected to the attraction of privilege to people who he believed were abusing their rights when they appeared as witnesses before parliamentary committees. Resolution 9 deals with the exercise of freedom of speech. If we are serious about this-it will become a sort of code of parliamentary conduct for members of parliament making speeches-I believe that the protections of individual citizens are guaranteed under that. If we are not protecting the rights of individuals by the adoption of that code in relation to the exercise of freedom of speech, what is it doing in these resolutions? Otherwise it is just meaningless nonsense. Either that code regarding the exercise of freedom of speech we live and operate by and we test each other on the basis of the points that are laid out in it or it is mere verbiage, meaningless nonsense. If it is something more than that it provides adequate protection. Mr Acting Deputy President, I put it to you, first, that there is an existing method of redress. That method is to have any member or senator-not a committee, not the President; the President or the Committee of Privileges does not have to test this-who is convinced of the justice of somebody's appeal for his name to be cleared if that person has been traduced to take the opportunity to make a speech in this place defending that person, putting that person's point of view and, if necessary, incorporating a statement or letter from that person with the leave of the Parliament or reading it into the record. So that avenue exists. I do not believe we have to create a whole new method of doing it. Secondly, I think this is a false remedy for a problem which really does not exist as a substantial problem. Despite what I might say about Senator Walsh from time to time and despite what Senator Walsh might say about individuals on this side of the chamber, I think by and large members of the Parliament have conducted themselves in relation to the rights of individuals in a pretty forthright manner and that the test is the test which we apply among colleagues as to the way in which we go about our business here. No set of rules like this will prevent a person who is intent on abusing the system from doing so but this proposal sets up a mechanism which involves the President, the Committee of Privileges, potential conflict in judgment between both, a whole method of deciding what constitutes conferring with aggrieved persons and senators and a potential for political division on the Committee of Privileges, the strength of which has largely lain in the fact that it does not divide along partisan political lines. The issues that are likely to arise before it under this regime are more likely to be contentious partisan political issues. We have difficulties over the distinction between publishing by the Senate and incorporating in Hansard. We have difficulties in relation to the degree of privilege which is attracted by publication or by incorporation in Hansard. We are setting up a system which is quite unnecessary. Adequate alternatives are currently available. Whilst I have no difficulty with all the other resolutions which are before us in relation to the rights of protection of witnesses before committees, the questions of legal aid, the questions of the code of conduct, and the questions of the raising of privilege and the like, I certainly very strongly oppose resolution 5 and I will certainly be voting against it, both in its original form and in the form of the amendments moved by Senator Durack. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(11.10) —Senator Puplick said that his Party had a free vote on this matter. I assure him that that is the situation on this side of the chamber. Indeed, constitutionally we are all obliged to exercise a free vote on questions of privilege. Perhaps I can show that there is a free vote on this matter by agreeing with a lot of what Senator Puplick said about resolution 5. However, I will add a few other things. This procedure could add to the problems that face somebody who is allegedly blackguarded in this chamber. If I blackguarded someone and Senator Puplick said, `That is not correct', I could say, `We will see whether the person whom you say I have unjustly blackguarded protests. It is all right for you to protest on his behalf but he has a procedure that he can go through to vindicate his character'. That puts the person concerned at a disadvantage because to vindicate his character he has to go through a procedure which I think, looking through this resolution, may take some months. There are letters to be written. The Committee of Privileges has to consider whether it ought to allow him to come before it. He then might have to go before the Committee. By the time all this procedure is gone through the effect of the original statement which he or she objects to has been lost. Surely, if we perform our duty as parliamentarians and representatives of the people, the best way out of this situation is for us to rise in our places, either that day or later, and protect that person's character by challenging the person who has made the statement to produce the evidence to back it up, or to vindicate in some way the character of the person blackguarded. Senator Durack —What if no senator bothers to do that? Senator COONEY —That is a problem, of course. It would be an indication that we had failed to perform our duty. Senator Durack —Why? Senator COONEY —Because if a person went to Senator Durack and complained, `Senator Cooney has insulted me. Are you going to do something about it?', and Senator Durack said, `No, I am not' he would have failed in his duty to represent that person-- Senator Durack —How often has that been done? Senator COONEY —It has not been done very often at all. But what evidence is there that this very clumsy procedure will be used when the much easier procedure of approaching somebody in opposition has not been used? It seems to me that what Senator Puplick is saying-I hope that I am correct in this-is that this resolution sets up a procedure, firstly, which may be used to blunt the effect of somebody wanting a rebuttal of a suggestion that has been made in relation to him or her and, secondly, that the procedure is very cumbersome. If one looks at it, so it is. The person's vindication will not appear the next day or the next week, that is, within a time-span that will have the effect of rebutting what has been said against him or her. It will be done in a time-span that will have quite the opposite effect. In about two or three months, I suggest, at the earliest by the time this procedure has gone through a paragraph will be put in Hansard. What sort of vindication is that of somebody who has been grossly insulted? Although the procedure looks attractive, the actual application of it will lead to a very poor answer to a statement that has been made against the person who was offended. I turn to resolution 3, the resolution which both sides have agreed to-both Senator Evans and Senator Durack. I do not want to suggest that this debate is going ahead on party lines. The resolution states: The Senate declares that it will take into account the following criteria . . . It then lists paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I am interested in paragraph (c) (ii), which states: (c) Whether a person who committed any act which may be held to be a contempt: . . . (ii) had any reasonable excuse for the commission of that act. Contempt is defined, in effect, in paragraph (a) in the following way: (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; Nobody could reasonably argue that matters of a trivial nature or matters that are unworthy of the attention of the Senate ought to be raised to the level where they are considered in terms of whether contempt has been committed. I can follow that. I agree that any acts which tend substantially to obstruct senators or the Senate itself in the performance of their functions ought to be the contempt that is dealt with here. But paragraph (c) (ii) affords a person who has committed an improper act tending substantially to obstruct the Senate or senators in the performance of their duties the ability to raise in exculpation that there was a reasonable excuse for the commission of that act. It is extraordinary that the Senate, an elected body, a chamber which passes laws for the betterment of the people of Australia, should be able to have its duty obstructed in a substantial way, and that that should be condoned if there was a `reasonable' excuse for it. Nevertheless, according to this commission clause a person who is not elected has the ability to obstruct the carrying out of duties by a person who is elected. Perhaps somebody can suggest to me how anybody could have a reasonable excuse for obstructing this chamber in the execution of its duties or senators in the execution of their duties. How could that ever be excused? That approach is quite extraordinary. I turn to resolution 1, the procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses. Paragraphs (9) and (10) talk about the care that should be taken with witnesses appearing before Senate committees. I agree that witnesses before Senate committees should be afforded protection. I think the resolution, on the whole, is admirable. However, paragraph (9) states: A chairman of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee's inquiry . . . Paragraph (10) states: 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 . . . Paragraph (12) states: Where a witness gives evidence reflecting adversely on a person and the committee is not satisfied that the 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. The question of relevancy should perhaps be explained. If `relevant' is used in the sense that it is used in the law of evidence, that is, that it makes a particular issue more or less likely, then paragraph (9) is too restrictive. A committee should be able to test a witness as to his or her credit. If the question of credit is excluded from the committee's consideration by (9) and (10), that should be corrected. If the expression `relevant to the committee's inquiry' includes the ability to test a witness's credit, I have no objection to it. I would like it made clear to me whether (9) does mean relevant not only in the legal sense of making an issue in dispute more or less likely, but also in the sense of credit- - Senator Durack —There is no way to qualify whether you say it does or not. Senator COONEY —No, but if the use of the word `relevant' in paragraph (9) is used in the legal sense, which is a question of whether a particular piece of evidence makes an issue in fact more or less likely, that particular paragraph excludes the ability of the Committee to put questions as to credit. If it does that, it seems to me to be far too restrictive. If, on the other hand, the expression `relevant to the committee's inquiry' includes not only evidence relevant to the question of whether a particular issue is more or less likely to have been the fact-if it is confined to that, then (9) should be expanded-but also the question of credit, I am quite happy with how it is expressed. Perhaps whoever sums up can tell me that. Senator Durack —That's the point I'm making. That would presumably be a matter for determination of the committee. Senator COONEY —No, but if that particular paragraph binds us, then it is not. If that is what that means, if it is used in the restrictive sense, the committee will be stopped from doing that. Senator Durack —The decision on what it means would be made according to the commonsense of the committee. Senator COONEY —Yes, but why did the honourable senator not put that in? I would be happy if he had put that in. If what he is saying is that all of this is to be left to the commonsense of the committee, clauses 9 and 10 have really said nothing. I hope that the committee has always exercised commonsense. If that is all it means, why have we got this elaborate display before us? That is what I want to know. Paragraph (12), which has material which causes some concern to me, states: 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. I am quite happy to agree that evidence should not be published if it is not relevant. It seems to me that there are problems in expunging evidence from the transcript of evidence as such simply because the committee thinks it is not relevant and it reflects adversely on a person. The expunging of and the removal of evidence always seems to me to be fraught with danger because the committee then becomes able to label evidence in a particular way and to exclude and expunge evidence which may later become significant. Although (12) may have merit in exceptional cases, to state it as a general rule is dangerous. They are the comments I want to make on this matter. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.25) —Mr Deputy President, I acknowledge that you and many other people have worked hard on this draft and in bringing this matter to this stage before the chamber. What we are discussing is important, and I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done not only by the senators who have been directly involved, but also by those responsible persons in the staff of the Senate who have the institution of the Senate at heart. I briefly want to acknowledge what Senator Cooney said about paragraph (9) of proposed resolution 1, which is of concern to me also. It states: A chairman of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee's inquiry . . . Let me give an example of this. If the Senate Select Committee on Video Material received evidence from, say, the former Commonwealth chief film censor-I am talking about Mrs Janet Strickland-and if one were to ask where she is now working, would that be a relevant matter? She happens to be working for one of the groups pushing videos which are the subject of the inquiry. I think that we are being too restrictive there. A polite question could be asked. I do not say that the witnesses who come before committees should be subjected to cross-examination or abuse. The chairman must ensure that that does not take place. But I think the point that has been raised by Senator Cooney is valid and I believe there should be an amendment made to address that issue. I shall go through the proposed resolutions very quickly and raise the points that exercise my mind, and whoever is summing up may be able to address them. Paragraph (3) of proposed resolution 1 states: 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 . . . It is my view that it may be difficult to determine what ought or ought not to go into the statement. I would have thought that a possible substitute for those words could be, `an outline of the subject headings expected to be dealt with'. That would probably enable the Committee secretariat and the Chairman of the Committee to define more clearly what is likely to be dealt with. I know that a statement of matters could encompass that, but if persons who were to appear as witnesses were given a list of the subject headings expected to be dealt with, that would not only assist those committee members but also focus their attention on the matters. Paragraph 1 (14) states: A witness may make application to be accompanied by counsel and to consult counsel . . . 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 . . . I assume that that means the proper legal protection, but it does not say that. If it means the proper legal protection, then it ought to say `the proper legal protection'. Paragraph (17) deals with the old problem which unfortunately enables many public servants appearing before Estimates committees to avoid answering questions. It states: An officer of a department of the Commonwealth or of a State shall not be asked to give opinions on a matter of policy . . . The Macquarie Dictionary definition of `policy' is as follows: . . . a definite course of action adopted as expedient or from other considerations . . . If, for example, the Department of Housing and Construction-or whatever it is now called-builds a building of one type instead of another type for another department, surely a decision of policy has been made by that department. It certainly should be required to explain such a policy. This paragraph does not say that it cannot do that and, on reflection, is quite proper, because officers cannot say, `It was a rotten decision made by my boss' and so on. Senator Puplick —There are other ways that they communicate that information. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. If what we are talking about when we refer to opinions is clearly understood, that is okay by me. But departments are expected to explain to Estimates committees, public accounts committees or public works committees the policies they have made. Departments and the individuals in departments make a large number of policy decisions, if the definition of `policy' is the one I have just given. Paragraph (19) says: Where a committee has any reason to believe that any person has been improperly influenced in respect of evidence . . . I wonder whether that is precise enough. I am not sure what is meant by the words `improperly influenced' in that context. Maybe whoever is summing up can let us know. Maybe Senator Durack or Senator Cooney will let us know whether that phrase is meant in the context of threats or whether it could apply to a person who is, for example, coached by a public relations man or a solicitor. What do the words `improperly influenced' mean? It seems to me that the definition is pretty broad. I do not have any comment to make about resolution 2. Paragraph (b) of resolution 3 states: the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt . . . Does that mean that, if a person could sue, the contempt would be relegated? In other words, if a person has the option of suing, does that mean that no further action will be taken on the question of contempt? I acknowledge the force of what Senator Puplick and Senator Cooney said in respect of resolution 5 but, as Senator Durack said, there may not be anybody in the chamber who may respond on behalf of an individual who is aggrieved. We have to provide for those persons who do not have anybody in the chamber to respond on their behalf. That could be done in one of two ways: by appointing a member of the Senate as a type of ombudsman who would defend anybody who feels aggrieved by what has been said in the chamber, or, alternatively, by taking the course proposed in resolution 5. Again, I acknowledge the force of the argument put forward by Senator Puplick. However, I cannot see any way out of the situation other than that which is proposed by resolution 5. Resolution 6 talks about interference with the Senate. Paragraph (1) states: 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. That is pretty broad, but I suppose it does not mean that campaigns cannot be waged outside to defeat a senator for what he or she may have said in this chamber. No doubt that is not meant there. I note what is said in paragraph (3). I simply observe that, if that paragraph were to be taken as it is written, everybody would become an independent. We will see how that works out. It is a very interesting paragraph. Paragraph (4) deals with the molestation of senators. It states: 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. I suppose there is a legal background to all these things. I hope that there is a legal background to the words `deprive of any benefit'. The general populace in my electorate is perfectly entitled to deprive me of the benefit of sitting here if I do things which are not in accordance with its wishes. I refer lastly to resolution 10: `Reference to Senate proceedings in court proceedings'. Paragraph (1) removes the opportunity for a majority party to stall court proceedings by refusing leave of the Senate. It is to the credit of the persons who have drawn up these resolutions that they have foreseen such circumstances and have included that paragraph. On that laudatory note, I again congratulate those who have been involved in placing these very important matters before the chamber. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.38) —I want to touch on only one matter, which Senator Harradine mentioned in passing but which I think warrants a little more consideration; that is, resolution 6, `Matters constituting contempts' and, in particular, matters involving interference with the Senate. Paragraph (1) says: 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. The following paragraphs list a series of elaborations, if you like, on the actions dealt with by that latter point; that is: A person shall not . . . improperly interfere with the free . . . performance by a Senator of the Senator's duties as a Senator. Paragraph (2) says: 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. I would like to focus for a moment on the use of the words `fraud, intimidation, force or threat of any kind'. I make the observation that a senator's conduct includes the senator's power-indeed, the senator's duty-to vote in this place. The next point is headed `Senators seeking benefits, etc'. I will read only the relevant parts of this paragraph: A Senator shall not . . . 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 . . . Paragraph (4), which is headed `Molestation of Senators', states: 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. I return to my first presumption, namely, that part of a senator's conduct is that senator's voting pattern and voting decision. Presumably, inducing an senator to be absent from the Senate or a committee is done in order, at least on some occasions, to prevent that senator from exercising a vote or making a statement of some kind. I wonder where that leaves Government members who apparently willingly sign a pledge that makes them bound to vote according to the majority decision of the Caucus. The penalty for voting against a decision by Caucus on a piece of legislation is expulsion. Indeed, that happened to former Senator George Georges only a short while ago. He voted against the Government's legislation on the card, was expelled and lost his job. He lost his income, his position and his capacity to continue to act as a senator. It would seem to me that that fits neatly under the heading `molestation'. I cannot think of anything worse that somebody could do to a senator than expel him from the political party to which he belongs, forcing him to contest the next election as an Independent, with very little opportunity of being returned. That is surely deprivation of a benefit in anybody's mind, as is the fact that he was influenced-or at least the attempt was made to influence him-in his conduct as a senator. As with all other Australian Labor Party senators and members, that influence is a constant influence and a constant attempt-sadly, generally successful-to influence their vote in this chamber. I wonder what happens regarding this major political party that happens to be in government-but this form of behaviour applies, anyway-whose senators enter into a contract which may, and indeed does, have the effect of controlling or limiting their independence or freedom of action as a senator. I would like to know precisely what we are going to do about this situation. If these matters relating to privilege which constitute contempt are passed, does that mean that we either release all Labor Party senators and members from any contract they entered into with the Labor Party, or do we move contempt proceedings against those people who have influenced them by intimidation, force or threat into making those contracts? If so, whom do we charge with this contempt? Certainly it is easy enough as far as paragraph (3) is concerned. If the senator enters into a contract which may have the effect of controlling or limiting the senator's independence or freedom of action as a senator, somebody can be specified as having acted in a manner constituting contempt. But in the case of former Senator Georges, to whom do we direct the action? If the answer is that we cannot pin it on a specific individual and we have to let the situation continue, then this item in the report is very sadly lacking. Essentially, we are saying that no outside person-that is, no non-political party person-can act improperly in this way, can attempt to influence a senator's conduct as a senator, can attempt to influence the way that senator votes or speaks, either in this chamber or on a committee. We will not allow an outsider to do that but we are perfectly happy to allow a majority of senators, wilfully and willingly, to do it to themselves or allow others to do it to them. It seems to me pretty appalling that we are making a set of rules for one set of people that we are apparently not willing to, or perhaps able to, apply to a significant proportion of people in this place. It is particularly important when we remember that allegedly-although, sadly it is a disappearing element in this place-the Senate is supposed to be a States House. It should therefore not have its members intimidated, threatened, forced or allowed to enter into any contract of their own volition which restricts them from exercising the very role they were elected for-that is, to look at legislation on its merits and if the Senate's origins are to be believed, according to its effect on their State of origin. If they do not perform their duty as senators, they are no longer able to conduct themselves as senators, they are unable to act independently or with freedom as senators. If they attempt to do that, they are punished, a penalty is applied and they are deprived of a benefit which, again, is an item of contempt under paragraph (4). As I said before, it is something of an outrage if resolution 6 in the document that we are discussing relates, refers and applies only to people outside this chamber, outside the Parliament as a whole, outside the political party system and does not apply to us as lawmakers. It is appalling that we should make something a contempt for other people and then allow ourselves to be exempt from it. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(11.48) —I wish to speak briefly in this privileges debate to discuss the fifth resolution-the protection of persons referred to in the Senate. I support the resolution-particularly the amendment proposed by Senator Durack-but I am apprehensive about the system. I agree with a great deal of what Senator Puplick and Senator Cooney have said. But, on balance, it is better to try the new system to see how it works out. We have a system whereby the President, as Senator Puplick said, makes a decision. Traditionally, parliamentarians use a common-sense approach, but of course they are politically biased. If someone on one side of the political spectrum is dubbed, a parliamentarian will usually raise the issue in the ordinary parliamentary process. That system has worked reasonably well. I acknowledge that the defamation laws in Australia are inadequate and so that is an additional problem that is injected into any discussion of parliamentary privilege. Resolution 5 (1) (a) states: 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 of financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person; That is a very comprehensive definition. I do not dispute that it has got to be a comprehensive definition. I am concerned that it might be possible for those who are well off and who can employ lawyers easily to take this issue into another political domain; in other words, the Privileges Committee could be in constant session. That is my concern. I am also concerned that senators represent a cross-section of people with human weaknesses. The history of their sitting on the Privileges Committee has shown them to be a commonsense group of people in their deliberations. I am concerned-I have had this experience as Chairman of the Privileges Committee-that skilled lawyers can turn what would ordinarily be a sensible meeting into a farce. The effect of this could be very long and protracted meetings. I acknowledge that these meetings are in private. I also acknowledge that Senator Durack's amendment is very sensible. It seeks to change cross-examine' to `examine'. It will curb some of the excesses that I have seen perpetrated on these witnesses when the Committee, as a non-legal body, has tried to be reasonably fair to people coming before it. My main concern is how this will work in practice. I think all the potential is there for people who wish to exploit the system to turn it into a farce. On balance I think it is probably necessary for us to see how it works out. After this has been put in operation I reserve my right to come back and say whether it is a successful way of dealing with these problems. At this stage I intend to vote for the proposed resolutions as they are to be amended. We will never know whether this system will work unless we give it a try. Senator Durack —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have the explanatory memorandum to the amendments I have moved incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The explanatory memorandum read as follows- Resolution 1. Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses Amendments (1) and (2). These amendments make it clear that a committee is not obliged to issue an invitation to appear or to produce documents before issuing a summons if the committee decides that a summons is warranted. Amendments (3) and (4). These amendments remove the references to reimbursement of legal costs of a person who is accompanied by counsel before a committee and to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by a person in making a submission or appearing before a committee. In the normal course of committee inquiries witnesses are not accompanied by counsel and meet their own expenses except for travel to and from committee meetings. Resolution 2. Procedures for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee Amendment (5). This is purely a drafting amendment to make it clear that, as contemplated by paragraph (2), a witness against whom adverse evidence is given may make application to have other witnesses called as well as to cross-examine witnesses. Amendment (6). The proposed new paragraph (11) makes it clear that the President is to grant reimbursement of the costs of representation of witnesses before the Committee only where the President is satisfied that a person would suffer substantial hardship due to liability to pay those costs. Resolution 5. Protection of persons referred to in the Senate Amendment (7). This would place an additional restriction on submissions by aggrieved persons, namely that submissions should not contain anything offensive in character. Amendment (8). The differences between the original paragraphs (2) to (8) and the proposed new paragraphs are as follows: amendments consequential on amendment (7) have been made throughout the requirement for the committee to invite the aggrieved person and relevant Senators to give evidence has been deleted, and an option for the committee to confer with those persons has been substituted, and other references to receiving evidence have been deleted throughout a requirement has been inserted that a response by an aggrieved person be succinct and relevant and not contain any offensive matter. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is that the eight amendments moved by Senator Durack to the resolutions be agreed to. Senator Puplick —Before you put that question, Mr Deputy President, I seek your guidance on the procedure for dealing with these. Will you then put each of the resolutions separately? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am putting all the amendments together and then the amended resolutions will be put separately. The question is that the eight amendments moved together by Senator Durack to the resolutions be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will just explain to Senator Puplick that, as there is some dissent on some of the resolutions, I will put each resolution separately. Resolutions 1 and 2, as amended, adopted. Resolution 3 adopted. Resolution 4 adopted. Question put: That resolution 5, as amended, be adopted The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Archer, B. R. Harradine, B.Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C.Beahan, M. E. MacGibbon, D. J.Bishop, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. McLean, P. A.Bolkus, N. McMullan, R. F.Burns, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Calvert, P. H. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Newman, J. M.Collins, R. L. Panizza, J. H.Colston, M. A. Parer, W. R.Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, A. R. Richardson, G. F.Durack, P. D. Schacht, C. C.Foreman, D. J. Short, J. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E.Haines, J. Walters, M. S.Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Cooney, B. C. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolutions 6 to 11-by leave-taken together, and adopted. Consideration resumed from 24 February. Clause 18. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.03) —Prior to consideration of this Bill being interrupted yesterday, I undertook to provide to Senator Walters details of the qualifications that magistrates were required to have in the various jurisdictions of Australia. I provided that information to the honourable senator's office last night, but it may be of use to other honourable senators if that list of qualifications were tabled and incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to incorporate that information in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Magistrates: State Territory Qualification for appointment as a Magistrate A.C.T. Barrister and solicitor of at least 5 years standing. A Special Magistrate need not be a legal practitioner but, as a matter of practice, all Special Magistrates exercising jurisdiction in the A.C.T. are legally qualified. N.S.W. Eligible for admission as barrister or solicitor of a Supreme Court in any State or Territory, or of the High Court. Northern Territory Enrolled for at least 5 years as a legal practitioner in any State or Territory. Queensland Eligible for admission as a solicitor (Magistrates appointed under former legislation were not required to be eligible for admission as a solicitor) South Australia Legal practitioner of at least 5 years standing. Tasmania Legal practitioner of at least 5 years standing. Victoria Qualified to practise as a barrister or solicitor of the Supreme Court of Australia, or the High Court. (magistrates appointed under former legislation were not required to be eligible for admission) (to be enacted this session: enrolled as a barrister or solicitor for 5 years, or clerk of court with 10 years experience and admitted as a barrister or solicitor) Western Australia Either qualified for admission as a legal practitioner OR completion of a course of study and passing a Magisterial examination set by WA Bar Association. Senator TATE —Senator Walters also asked whether justices of the peace might be caught up in the exercise of the jurisdiction that the Bill, if enacted, would enable to be conferred on courts of summary jurisdiction. I said that that was not the intention and would not be the policy pursued in our negotiations with the States as to which courts of summary jurisdiction might be prescribed. I am now able to say that in fact that is not permitted, anyway. In all States, except Victoria and the Northern Territory, justices of the peace may sit as courts of summary jurisdiction. Courts of summary jurisdiction are invested with jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, and of course they would be invested with such jurisdiction by this Bill. But, by operation of section 39 (2) (d) of the Judiciary Act, that jurisdiction cannot be exercised judicially by a court of summary jurisdiction of a State, except by a stipendiary, police or special magistrate. In the Northern Territory it is not intended to prescribe, for the purposes of proposed section 44a of the Family Law Act, courts of summary jurisdiction where justices of the peace sit. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.07) —Clause 18 deals with the monetary limit in property proceedings with which a magistrates court can deal. The Bill as originally drafted allowed magistrates courts to deal with property cases involving property of a certain value according to the amount specified in the State civil debt jurisdictions. That would have meant that different magistrates courts in different States would have been able to deal with cases involving property valued at different amounts. The Government's amendment seeks to impose a $20,000 ceiling on the value of property in contested property proceedings that can be heard in the magistrates court. The Opposition proposes to move an amendment seeking to lower that ceiling to $10,000. It is probably worth while to examine the different monetary limits imposed in the various States on property matters that can be heard in their respective civil debt jurisdictions; as well as the intentions of the various States in the coming year or so. In New South Wales the current limit on the civil debt jurisdiction of magistrates courts is $5,000. Although that is the current limit, a Bill that raises that limit to $10,000, and $20,000 where a car is involved, has still to receive royal assent, although royal assent may have been granted in the intervening period since I received these statistics. In Victoria the amount is $20,000, and I understand that a Bill to raise that amount to $40,000 is at present before the Legislative Council of the Victorian Parliament. Under the provisions of the Queensland Magistrates Courts Act, the limit is $5,000, although there is a proposal to increase that limit to $20,000 next year. In South Australia the limit is $7,500, but I understand that an amendment that has been passed but not yet proclaimed raises that limit to $20,000. Under the Tasmanian Local Courts Act, the limit is $5,000. To the best of my knowledge there is no immediate plan to increase that amount. I shall leave Western Australia out of it for the moment because, as with most other matters dealing with family law, Western Australia is a special case. The present limit in the Northern Territory is $10,000, and that amount is to be increased next year. However, I do not know to what level it is to be increased. In the Australian Capital Territory the limit is $10,000, with drafting instructions apparently in train to increase that amount to $50,000. I do not know whether that says something about the wealth of people who live in the Australian Capital Territory as distinct from people anywhere else or whether the relative value placed on that worth is so vastly different from what other States are looking at. Roughly speaking, most States are looking at upping the ante to $20,000. Presumably, the Government has chosen that level for that reason. However, there are enough variations on that to make some alternative proposal viable. I would have thought it a reasonable compromise to look at the situation in New South Wales. We are dealing with a relatively small group of people, that is, people whose property distribution is valued at quite small amounts of money-$10,000 in the case of the Liberal amendment and $20,000 in the case of Labor's amendment to its own Bill. We are looking in the main at people who are renting, because if they owned their own property they would be outside the ambit of this legislation. Nevertheless, $10,000 is a very small amount when one takes into account the value of the goods in the home, and is a particularly small amount if the family owns one or more cars. The word `owns' is usually a euphemism because in most cases the finance company owns most of the car. Nevertheless, in most cases there will be a car around. Senator Durack —Would the car be owned if it could be taken over? Senator HAINES —I suppose that, if the car was to be taken over, I would have to ask the Minister whether the case of a car not fully owned, not fully paid for, falls into the property to be distributed. I would have assumed that the debt would transfer to whoever was prepared to take the car on or whoever was granted the car. Perhaps before I pursue the matter I could have some response to that from the Government. I would have thought that one would run into the same problem with a house which has a mortgage over it but which nevertheless has an ascribed value. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.12) —I am advised that, if the car were allocated to one of the parties, that would normally carry the debt with it. But it is open to the judge perhaps to vary that and say that the other party should make a contribution or indeed even pay all the instalments. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.12) —There has been a misunderstanding. If we are talking about a magistrates court deciding on the distribution of property, it is the Government's intention, as indeed it is the intention of everybody in this place, to put a limit on the value of that property. The question that arose between Senator Durack and me related to what amounts to the value. Is a house worth $100,000 as part of the property settlement, if there is still an outstanding mortgage of $60,000, or is it worth only $40,000 because of the outstanding amount still to be paid? At this level, whether the figure is $10,000 or $20,000 or the New South Wales alternative of $10,000 or $20,000 if a car is involved, how do we determine that value? That is a pertinent matter in view of Senator Durack's comments. If the car is worth $11,000 but the finance company is still owed $9,000, are we saying that there is $2,000 or $11,000 involved. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.13) —In Government amendment No. 8 it is intended that the gross value be taken less the lien, mortgage, charge or whatever might exist in relation to that property. In other words, one takes gross value. This is for the purpose of setting the level at which the jurisdiction of the magistrate to deal with the property matter cannot be contested. In other words, it sets the limit for the jurisdiction. Senator Durack —Your amendment seems to be the reverse. Senator TATE —I said that one takes gross value and does not take into account the charge, lien, mortgage or whatever. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.14) —Is the Minister saying that if the car is worth $11,000, whether bought yesterday and that sum was paid for it or whether the car was bought 10 years ago and its retail value is $11,000, the figure of $11,000 is taken as the value in this clause? Senator Tate —If one takes the next amendment with it, yes. Senator HAINES —I thank the Minister. Essentially, if a couple are renting a home or a unit-if not, they are outside the ambit of this legislation-and if they have some property, a refrigerator, washing machine, dryer, or whatever items families have these days, such as television sets and videos, all of which have vast amounts of money owed on them but under the Government's definition all of which are valued presumably not at replacement value but at their depreciated value, which is another matter I would like a ruling on, is the value that we are looking at of the goods in the home replacement value or their depreciated value? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.15) —It is the market value at the time the court is considering the matter, which would be a valuation, I suppose, undertaken by those experienced in that sort of valuation-auctioneers and so on. Senator Haines —It is the depreciated value, in essence. Senator Short —It is the market value. Senator TATE —Yes. Well, it is the market value at that time. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.15) —If there is some value that may depend on market forces, it may have been a higher value than the one originally paid. Let us hope that nobody has a Van Gogh in the garret, or he will be in big trouble under this provision. Senator Durack —Some cars have appreciated above their purchase value. Senator HAINES —Senator Durack is absolutely right. Unfortunately, I have never been the lucky purchaser of one of those. I seem to pick my cars very badly. To return to the nub of this problem-the level at which we shall set the ceiling for property proceedings in the magistrates court-let us suppose that there are the usual white goods owned by the couple and a car. It would be unusual these days for a couple not to have at least one car. I would have thought that $10,000 could well be a little low as a level to set. It may well mean that the couple are able to go to the magistrates court for the dissolution of the marriage but are not able to have property dealt with there because the value of the car, the fridge, the washing machine, the dryer and so on exceed the $10,000 limit. On the other hand, I am not all that sure that $20,000 is not too high. The point I am trying to make is: would it not be a better idea to take the New South Wales compromise and to set the limit at $10,000 and, where a car is involved, $20,000? I give notice that I shall be moving an amendment to Senator Durack's amendment. I do not know what the precedence is when everybody has amendments to everybody else's amendments. Senator Durack —You jumped in too soon. I should have been moving my amendment before you. Senator HAINES —I know that precedence is all in this place. I am perfectly happy for Senator Durack to move his amendment to the Government's amendment to its own Bill. The Government is amending its Bill. Senator Durack will move an amendment to the Government's amendment to the Bill, and I intend to move an amendment to Senator Durack's amendment to the Government's amendment to its Bill. The ultimate result will be, I hope, that this place passes the clause so that the ceiling is $10,000 or, where a car is involved, $20,000. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.20) —In relation to Senator Tate's amendment No. (7), I move: Leave out $20,000, insert $10,000. I dealt with this matter to some extent before we rose yesterday, and indicated reasons why the Opposition believes that the figure of $10,000 is more appropriate than the original proposals of the Government to which an amendment was first proposed. Then, of course, the Government abandoned its indefensible process of linking the value to the debt recovery jurisdiction of the court. Senator Haines —That was definitely a dumb move on its part. Senator DURACK —We all agree. Senator Tate obviously agrees with that, even though the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) seemed to have a different view. But we all agree that that was a bad idea. The Opposition's alternative was $10,000. Then, ultimately, the Government came up with its alternative of $20,000. I think I have explained why the Opposition chose $10,000. Briefly, anyway, it was because the figure of $1,000 that exists in the Family Law Act as the value of property would now appropriately be about $3,500. For many of the reasons that Senator Haines has already indicated, with the likely value of furniture and a car, probably that figure should be increased by three times. In other words, the original figure should probably be about $3,500. We lit on the figure of $10,000 by multiplying the present value of $3,500 by three. The Opposition has some concerns about Senator Haines's proposal. It would mean that if a car had a very low value or was perhaps even bought for the purpose of expanding the jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction should suddenly jump from $10,000 to $20,000. That does not seem to be a very tidy way of doing this because there could be in some cases a special item of furniture or an heirloom or something that is worth just as much as a car. I know that the value of a car would probably be the most likely item of property to be affected, but it would not be the only item. So it seems to me that there are anomalies in Senator Haines's proposals and, therefore, it really is better to get a round figure-whether it is $10,000 or the Government's $20,000, or somewhere in between-rather than doing it in the way Senator Haines has proposed. I would just like to clarify one matter with the Minister, though, before we vote on these matters. Senator Haines raised with the Minister the question of the value of the property; is it simply the gross value or is it the value of the property in the ordinary sense of the asset that the person has? I presume the present section of the Family Law Act does not address that. It just says `of a value of $1,000'. The Government will subsequently move an amendment which reads: In determining the value of any property for the purposes of subsection (1)- which is the subsection we are dealing with- any mortgage, lien, charge or other security over the property is to be disregarded. I take it that is really to clarify a problem that has existed. Am I right in that view? Senator Tate —I believe so. Senator DURACK —How has that been resolved? Has there been any decision made to resolve that? Senator Tate —I am told that the courts have applied the gross value, but there has been controversy as to whether that was the correct method. Senator DURACK —In fact, we are adopting here the court decision. I think that would probably be the right interpretation, but I can see the problem. We were clearly talking about the gross value of the property in question and disregarding now in this amendment any mortgage, lien, charge or other security. Particularly in relation to Senator Haines's proposal that we include the car, she quite rightly said that the other likely fact is that the car will be under hire purchase. We know that with the inflation that has occurred in recent years, even the basic family car is worth about $20,000 new but in most cases it probably would have been purchased as a second-hand car, and that will have been further depreciated despite the increase in the values of second-hand cars also. The other likely event is that this car will be under hire purchase. I interjected on Senator Haines because I was not sure whether that would apply to a car under hire purchase. The only property in issue would be the exercise of the right to buy because it does not come in under mortgage, lien, charge or other security. It is not a mortgage. It may be bought by giving the security of a bill of sale. Unless there have been some changes to property law of which I am not aware, which may well be the case, I would have thought that the only property that exists in the case of a car under hire purchase would be what we would think of as the net value, not the gross value. I wonder whether the Minister could elaborate on that. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.28) —Before the Minister elaborates on that, could I add to what Senator Durack has just asked and question where the ownership of the car actually does reside under law if the car is being paid off by a couple or an individual. Who in fact does own the car? Are we going to get the magistrates dividing property between the couple and a finance company, or what is involved here? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.29) —Under a hire purchase agreement the actual owner of the property remains the hirer. Senator Durack —The hire purchase company. Senator TATE —I mean the hire purchase company, yes. That is what I meant to say. The person who hires the motor vehicle acquires an interest in the sense of-- Senator Durack —An option to exercise would apply. Senator TATE —Obviously the purchaser has possession and then has an option. He is more or less exercising an option in a sort of ambulatory way until he has paid off all his payments, and then he gets the title. That is the way it works. What the magistrate in any of these situations is trying to determine is who should have that ultimate title when the payments are made. Senator Durack —But the property is not the car; it is the right to exercise that option to buy it. Senator TATE —I think that is the better way to express it. At the time of the hire purchase agreement, it is the ability to acquire the title at the end of the agreement which is the right that is vested in the person and that is valued at the gross value. Senator Durack —Yes, but that is not the value of the car; that is the point. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.31) —Is the Minister saying that the point in question concerning the car under hire purchase involves just the value of the car that has already been paid off; that bit of the car that has already been paid off? Senator Tate —No, I am saying it is the gross value. Senator WALTERS —If it is the gross value, it is not all owned by the individual. Senator Tate —No more than a house with a mortgage or a fridge that is being paid off. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.32) —I thought Senator Tate was agreeing that the position of a piece of property under hire purchase was a different matter of title from that of a house that is already in one's name under a mortgage. If it is a car that is under a bill of sale, an ordinary chattel mortgage, there is a difference between the two. I thought Senator Tate just agreed with that. Therefore, if the ownership remains, as it does, with the hire purchase company then the value of the property in that case is whatever interest the party has to convert into a property ownership ultimately. Is that not the position? Senator Tate —Yes. Senator DURACK —So in common layman's language, it is the net value in the case of the car under hire purchase or in the case of furniture under hire purchase, which it is likely to be, as distinct from the position with the house, in which case it is the gross value because the mortgage loan is being disregarded by Senator Tate's amendment. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.33) —I move: Add after the words `$10,000' the words `and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000'. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering clause 18 of the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987, to which Senator Tate has moved an amendment to subclause (a) to leave out some words and insert the figures `$20,000', to which Senator Durack has moved an amendment to change `$20,000' to `$10,000', to which Senator Haines has moved an amendment to add the words `and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000'. The question before the Chair is that Senator Haines's amendment to Senator Durack's amendment be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Aulich, T. G. Jones, G. N.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Black, J. R. McLean, P. A.Bolkus, N. McMullan, R. F.Burns, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Wood, W. R.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.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. 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, J. O. W. Button, J. N. Hill, R. M.Coates, J. Chaney, F. M.Devereux, J. R. Sheil, G.Evans, Gareth Lewis, A. W. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Tambling, G. E. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that Senator Durack's amendment, as amended, be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that Senator Tate's amendment, as amended by Senator Durack's amended amendment, be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment (by Senator Tate) agreed to: (8) Page 7, clause 18, after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraphs: ``(aa) by inserting after subsection (1a) the following subsection: `(1ab) In determining the value of any property for the purposes of subsection (1), any mortgage, lien, charge or other security over the property is to be disregarded.'; (ab) by omitting from subsection (1b) `, as mentioned in paragraph (1) (d),';''. Amendment (by Senator Tate) agreed to: (9) Page 7, clause 18, line 26, insert ``instituted in or'' after ``been''. Amendment (by Senator Tate) agreed to: (10) Page 7, clause 18, line 34, insert ``or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory'' after ``Family Court''. Amendment (by Senator Tate) agreed to: (11) Page 7, clause 18, line 36, insert ``or the Supreme Court, as the case may be'' after ``Court''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., under sessional order I shall report progress. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Order! The Senate will now proceed to matters of public interest. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.45) —I wish to raise today an item with regard to overseas student policy. The Government announced in its Green Paper on higher education a review of overseas student policy in response to: . . . some criticisms about various aspects of aid, foreign policy and administrative features of the subsidised program. The Government's Green Paper says: . . . any changes to the conditions of entry of new students that result will be implemented from 1990. It certainly would not be unreasonable, I think, to argue that the days of the subsidised student program are numbered. I understand that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, is keen to see the overseas student program feature simply full-fee marketed courses on a commercial basis, plus government to gov- ernment scholarships via the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau. Certainly it may be argued, of course, that a subsidised private student program cannot be sustained long in its present form. The overseas student charge is now so high that it probably does prevent students from poorer backgrounds from undertaking a course in any Australian institution, while it still gives a hefty subsidy to students from wealthier backgrounds who can afford full-fee courses. But it can also be argued from the point of view of Australia's foreign interests, on the grounds of the promotion of international student mobility and on human rights grounds, that there should be still some mechanism within the overseas student program that provides a generous subsidy to private overseas students-that is, students who are not nominees of their government. If this Government is intent on doing away with the subsidised overseas student program in its present form, I suggest that a system of scholarships provided to private overseas students by individual higher education institutions, as a result of extra funds from the Government, would return opportunities for an Australian education to students from poorer backgrounds, ensure that large numbers continued to study in this country from overseas, and be in harmony with our foreign policy interests. One of the by-products of Australia's overseas student program is its contribution towards easing racial tension in a number of countries-in particular racial tension in Malaysia. Thousands of young Malay, Chinese and Indian students have been able to study in this country and undertake higher education which would otherwise be denied to them in their own country as a result of the discriminatory policies of the Malay dominated government. If we do not provide that opportunity, I suggest that the resentment felt by Chinese and Indians towards the indigenous Malays is likely to increase. I do not think I have to remind the Senate of the situation that occurred towards the end of last year, and it is still continuing, whereby large numbers of Malay politicians, particularly those from Opposition parties, were placed under detention. They remain under detention, some of them being detained under the Security Act for up to two years. This is a situation, of course, which means that people can be detained by government decree, without trial, for two years. Undoubtedly there is a racial problem in Malaysia, but Australia's engaging in an exercise with regard to its foreign aid program mindless of that particular racial tension I think would be not only to the detriment of Malaysia but also to the detriment in a very important way of Australia's foreign interests. Almost all Malay, Chinese and Indians who have entered Australia to study have in fact undertaken their study here and returned to their own country. If we now look at the higher education fee, the overseas student charge, it increased in 1985 to 32 per cent or 45 per cent of the full average cost of a course, that amount being the amount the Government maintains is the cost of a full student within our institutions. It is not, by the way, the amount of money the Government is providing for the recent new places. Interestingly enough there is another bit of hypocrisy which floats around there and that is that the new places are funded at $3,000 to $4,000 and overseas students are charged at the nominal rate of $10,000. So while the Government says an overseas student costs $10,000, it is only funding new places for Australian students at $3,000 to $4,000. I think we have to acknowledge the situation in Malaysia. It is a distressing situation for those people who know the country and who are hopeful that that country will continue in the democratic tradition. There has been, of course, in recent times the added problem of the Supreme Court of Malaysia ruling that the current ruling party is illegal. The ruling party there is not only a political party but also a major landowner, a major developer and the owner of some of the most prestigious properties in Kuala Lumpur. The current government party is basically a federation of a number of other parties: a Chinese party, an Indian party and a Malay party. It was hoped that by that method there could be a move forward, in an area which I am not trying to suggest is anything other than difficult. It is therefore very important for Australia to consider carefully any implications for that situation in Malaysia with regard to the overseas student charge. The program is undoubtedly now in jeopardy. We have moved from providing a more generous level of support to providing support only for those children of wealthy families. I think that Australia has to look again at how it might give support, and the suggestion I wish to put forward is that the current subsidy be provided directly to the institutions. The institutions then would be able to provide scholarships on the basis of merit. I understand that there would be, even if that scheme were fully adopted, still a government to government program, but with Malaysia, at present, that government to government program involves almost exclusively Malays. I believe that if the institutions had the opportunity, by way of scholarship, to support overseas students we would be making a major contribution to levelling out, in some way, the people who are able to come to Australia and partake of study here. I had the opportunity towards the end of last year to be in Kuala Lumpur for a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. It was very interesting to hear from Malaysian politicians-and we were there on Independence Day so we had the chance to mingle with many people, not only from the Federal Parliament but also from the provincial parliaments-that they hold Australia very dear. One is astounded by the number of politicians in Malaysia who studied in Australia, who return to Australia for their holidays, who bring their families to Australia for holidays and who have very fond memories of this country. In other words, if one looks at the current context one sees the results of the money that our community has spent in the past on educating students from other countries. One sees that that is paying off. If one really wants to be selfish about it, in terms of dollar for dollar benefits, and not look at it as part of our international obligation, one could very well sustain an argument that we have got back more than we have put in with regard to the education of overseas students. Our ability to trade with Malaysia is based on that very warm understanding between the people who are in power and in positions of influence in Malaysia and their counterparts here in Australia. I would urge the Government, therefore, not to put aside lightly the current program without looking, in terms of its replacement, at this issue of racial tensions in Malaysia and making sure that any replacement for the current program does not exacerbate the problem in that country, with which we have very warm and enduring relationships, but assists that country to move forward in solving that very difficult problem. At the same time we should urge the Malaysian Government to move on the institution of a more vigorous parliamentary democracy. I believe that the ingredients are there within the country, the goodwill is there within the country, and there are many people who wish that that will be the future for Malaysia. I think this country has an obligation to make sure that in any task we undertake we do not get in the way of a successful resolution of the racial conflict in Malaysia and its development as a thriving and vigorous democracy within our region. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(12.58) —I want to address during this lunchtime matters of public interest debate a very important event-important not only to the individuals who participated in it but important to the skills and the future of our nation. At a time when a lot of attention is being given to the results of the Winter Olympics currently being held in Canada, I am going to refer to the results of another set of Olympic Games, these ones held this time in Australia. It is unfortunate, and indeed an indictment on the media of this country, that the media have not given this particular event its fair share of coverage, because it is an extremely important event. I am referring of course, Mr Acting Deputy President, as you yourself would know, to the 1988 International Youth Skill Olympics. Reports in this morning's papers indicated that the youth of Australia have done particularly well in this competition. Out of 34 skill classifications, Australia won four gold medals, five silver medals and three bronze medals-by far and away the best Australia has ever done in this competition. It is only the third occasion on which we have competed in the competition. The first was in Austria in 1983, when we finished in tenth place with 12 young competitors. In Japan in 1985 we had an 18-member team and we won gold in bricklaying, and we won also two silver medals and three bronze medals. We were placed equal fifth. On this occasion we have won 12 medals, as I said, and we were placed third in the competition placings, behind Korea and Taiwan. I had the pleasure, and the very rewarding experience, of being able to visit the Youth Skill Olympics in Sydney last Saturday morning, in company with three fellow members of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. You yourself, Mr Acting Deputy President, were there, and like me were enthralled with the skills on display and the enthusiasm of the young people who were taking part in the competition. This competition is the culmination of a whole series of events in which some 4,000 individual young people of Australia took part over the last two years. They competed in 30 regional competitions leading up to the Skill Olympics, the results of which were announced yesterday. Nineteen nations competed, and these Skill Olympics have been far and away the most successful to be held. As I said earlier in my speech, there were some 34 skill classifications, ranging from bricklaying through to computer numerically controlled machining, fitting, gas welding, plumbing, stonemasonry, jewellery, ladies hairdressing, men's hairdressing and a range of other trades. I think it is a commendation for Australia that we were able to reach the high standing we did reach, and indeed it is a tribute to the organisers of this event, to the participants and to their managers. In mentioning how we went, I would also draw attention to the emphasis that other nations place on this competition. As I said earlier, this is only the third time that we have participated in the Skill Olympics, and we have done particularly well, but it is the twenty-ninth occasion that the competition has been held. One nation giving a great deal of attention to the competition is Ireland. Ireland, a tiny nation with a population actually smaller than Sydney, the city in which the competition was held, outlaid some three-quarters of a million Irish pounds, around $2m, to send 18 people across to these Olympics. They came out of the competition with four medals-two gold, one silver and one bronze. Ireland has a reputation going back to medieval days of being the island of saints and scholars. I do not want to dwell too much on the saintly part of it, but on the scholarly part of it I am proud to say that the country retains its emphasis on the education of its youth. It is known within Europe that the youth of Ireland are the youngest, most highly educated group of young people in Europe. That in itself is a commendation for that nation which, like Australia, is suffering very severe economic pressures. Despite those economic pressures, Ireland has outlaid a substantial amount of money. Although $2m may not be a great amount of money in terms of the Australian Budget, to a small nation like Ireland it is a tremendous amount of money. It shows the emphasis that this small nation is putting on the education of its youth. Leading up to the Skill Olympics, we have had a competition known as Work Skill Australia, held over 30 regions of Australia. Some 532 young people participated in 42 skill categ- ories. Over the whole of the competition, 4,000 young people took part. The organisation for this event was done mainly by volunteers-volunteers from industry, from government departments and from the trade union movement. This is an excellent example of what co-operation can do. I would be pleased to provide any honourable senator, or indeed anybody else, with a list of the people who made contributions to this magnificent event. In conclusion, I would like to place on the record, on behalf of the Senate, our congratulations to the people who organised the event, the people who supported our youth all the way through the competitions, and there was a range of them, and the individual winners. You, Mr Acting Deputy President, would be interested to know that three of the four of this country's gold medal winners actually came from your home State of Queensland. I am sure you will be doing something in your own way to congratulate them. Our gold medal winners were, in the bricklaying field, Stephen Perryman, from Armidale in New South Wales; in automotive mechanics, Devin Flor, from Mackay in Queensland; in plant mechanics, Mark Eddison, from Highfields in Queensland; and in the industrial wiring category, Russell Cooper from Gladstone in Queensland. I think all honourable senators would join me in wishing these people every congratulations on their success and every good wish for their future. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(1.06) —I wish to deal at this particular time with two matters which are essentially unrelated except that they are both relevant to the activities of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to additional information which has not been canvassed before concerning how Mr Stephen Loosley dealt with the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd cheque for $10,000. The excuses that we have been given are that it was sloppy, that it was an honest mistake. One could almost say that `sloppy and honest mistake' has become the new motto of the Labor Party in Australia, particularly in New South Wales. In fact, those excuses just do not stand up to scrutiny. When we look at the facts we see that there is room for further alarm. The facts are these: in New South Wales electoral funding legislation was introduced in 1981, and section 83 of that legislation provides that, within 90 days of the day for the return of the writs for a general election, a declaration of political contributions received and electoral expenditure incurred during the period commencing on the day following the polling day for the previous general election and ending on the polling day for the current election has to be made. All moneys received have to be disclosed. There is only one exception to that rule, and that is moneys which are received and which have been expressly given and used solely for the purpose of an election for a legislature not being in New South Wales. In the event that the cheque had been properly dealt with and banked in New South Wales as a political donation for electoral purposes, it would still have had to have been disclosed in the 1987 New South Wales return under the Federal legislation. Under the New South Wales legislation even if it had been banked for maintenance purposes it would still have had to have been disclosed as having been received between the two elections. However, in May 1987 the Labor Government in New South Wales introduced a new Bill. It introduced a Bill to amend the Election Funding Act, to change the necessity for all contributions to be disclosed, whether for maintenance or for electoral purposes, to the position where only those donations received for electoral purposes need be disclosed. The timetable for this particular incident is very relevant. The Bill was introduced on 13 May, the second reading debate took place on 28 May, on 29 May the Bill was guillotined through-in fact Mr Booth, from the Liberal Party, was in mid-sentence when he was cut off-and the Bill was assented to on 16 June. It is interesting, of course, that the Harris-Daishowa letter was dated 11 June. It was received by Mr Young in his office on 14 June, and up until that point had it been received in New South Wales its disclosure would have been required. But on 16 June, when the Bill was assented to, the necessity to disclose that money, if it was used for maintenance purposes and if it had been given for maintenance purposes, no longer existed. Mr Loosley wrote on 24 June acknowledging receipt of the cheque and saying it was used for maintenance purposes. But of course one cannot convert the intention of the donor by trying to say that it is to be used for a different purpose. It is most interesting to note, Mr Acting Deputy President, that today on the midday news Mr Unsworth announced that Mr Stephen Loosley's name will no longer be used as the authorisation of the commercials for the ALP's political advertising. So it is most significant to look at the timetable over which those events took place. Today Senator Short and shadow Attorney-General Reith have called upon the Government to do all it can to have the report on this matter released. It is indeed an important matter. The second matter I want to deal with is also a scandal in New South Wales, and it relates directly to the Richmond report. For those honourable senators who are not aware of what the Richmond report is, it is a report dealing with the closing of schedule 5 hospitals in New South Wales; that is, hospitals where people who have a mental disability have had hospital care hitherto. I think I might have mentioned on a previous occasion that I recently listened to the parent of somebody who had, in his words, been kicked out of a schedule 5 hospital, and he asked that the Ministers who kicked his daughter out also be kicked out. This story relates to what happens to the Richmond rejects. It is a story which relates to a Bondi boarding house. This boarding house, as a result of two-thirds of the schedule 5 hospitals being closed, has become one of those places where people who no longer have a home are ending up. With people spilling out of shelters for the homeless, they are having to go to places such as this. The Bondi Lodge, at 63 Fletcher Street, Bondi, is a boarding house allegedly for old and poor as well as mentally disabled people who have been thrown out of hospitals because of the Richmond report. It is currently not licensed by the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services as a residence for handicapped persons. It houses approximately 95 people and Waverley Council has notified the owner of overcrowding on at least one occasion. The owner since September 1987 is one Michael Lenin. The manager is one Simon Coleman. Simon Coleman is a man who is known to the Department of Health as a manager of such boarding houses and has been frequently in breach of licensing requirements in the past. Officers in the Department of Youth and Community Services have recommended, I am advised, that Coleman be taken to court for failing to apply for a licence for the Bondi Lodge. The Department has given him until April to meet the licensing requirements. It is alleged that he is known to use violence on some of the boarders. A description of the premises is pretty awful. It is overcrowded, with some rooms having as many as eight beds in a room and where both men and women sleep in that same room. There is only one very small common room, with broken chairs and where large tins are used for ashtrays. The carpet and the other coverings are worn and torn. The stairs are steep, with dangerous coverings; bathrooms and toilets are rarely cleaned; mould and grime are everywhere. People who are living upstairs complain of the leaking roof. The premises are rarely cleaned. There is poor quality food; residents complain of rotten fruit and vegetables. The bedding is rarely changed, the fire doors are usually locked and there are sanitation problems. Mr Acting Deputy President, I do have photocopies of photographs of that boarding house, and I seek leave to table those photocopies. Leave granted. Senator BISHOP —When patients come out of schedule 5 hospitals, where they have had their medicines monitored, and go into a place like the Bondi Lodge, there is no way they can have someone supervise that medication. These people are paying anything up to $100 a week to live in these seamy conditions. But the point that has to be made is that this problem has been caused by the actions of the Unsworth Government, closing the schedule 5 hospitals and throwing those people out-kicking them out, in the words of the Italian father I mentioned earlier. They are being kicked out and they have nowhere to go, so these are the premises which become the dosshouses of the streets of the city of Sydney. The New South Wales Liberal Party, the alternative Government for New South Wales, has said that it will not sell the nine psychiatric schedule 5 hospitals; that it will look after those people who are disabled and psychiatrically ill; that they will have proper and decent treatment; that proper action will be taken to make sure that people do not have to live in these deplorable conditions; and that an action of government should not result in a lessening of the quality of life of people who, through no fault of their own, have become a burden that they themselves cannot deal with. I have dealt with two matters which I have said are unrelated in subject matter, except for the close nexus that they have with the operations of the Labor Party in New South Wales. It is indeed most important to bring to the Senate's attention the timetable setting out the way the law in New South Wales was changed with the knowledge of the ALP and the ALP machine; the way that the cheque was dealt with after that particular date; the fact that Mr Unsworth has seen fit to remove Loosley's name from advertising; and the fact that the Government that says it is concerned about going back to basics has no care or compassion for people who have no way of looking after themselves. The Labor Party, in New South Wales in particular, stands condemned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(1.19) —Mr Acting Deputy President, the matter that I wish to raise today under the heading `Matters of Public Interest' certainly is of interest to many of my constituents. It is a matter which I raised previously this week, by way of a question, and in the Estimates committee hearings last year; that is: what is going to be the fate of many former public servants who are in receipt of compensation with the new arrangements that the Government intends to bring in? It is a matter which is causing great anxiety to many people I would think throughout Australia but particularly in my electorate. Public servants in receipt of compensation, who are very unsure of their future while the Government continues to hedge, are not able to get straight answers about what will happen to them in the future. As I said, I asked at an Estimates committee hearing on 8 October 1987 when information would be available about the proposed changes. That was October, but that was many months after people had known there were to be changes and had been trying to get answers. I was told then: It is possible that legislation might be introduced in the current sittings- that is, the last Budget sittings- or in the next sittings. There are still some decisions to be taken on the matter, but consideration of the detail is at a very advanced stage. In fact, drafting has commenced. That was last October. I wonder why, then, when it is almost six months later, that all questions about this matter are met with a stoney silence from the Ministers involved. I refer again to the question I put to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) on 22 February, asking whether he could at least give an assurance that those who are on compensation will not be retrospectively disadvantaged by the new arrangements. It seemed to me that it was not unreasonable to ask for that assurance, especially as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is seeking to defuse the superannuation issue by saying that there will be no retrospective operation of the new legislation affecting superannuation. He said that presumably to keep things under control for the New South Wales election. I wonder, then, why he will not give such an assurance as far as former public servants in receipt of compensation are concerned. Perhaps the problem is that there just are not enough of them in New South Wales for the Government to feel that it is a matter of any consequence. I think the line is wearing a bit thin when daily there are news reports, some of them going into great detail, of what is proposed in the legislation. There has been some consultation, so the extent of the changes is fairly well known. I refer to the article in today's Canberra Times, which sets out in considerable detail the numbers of people likely to be affected and the arrangements which are to be put in place. I would say to the Government, `Are these proposals now published correct or are they not? Will you give us a straight answer and if not, why not? What conclusions are people entitled to draw from the fact that you will not confirm or deny what is very widely known to be the case at the present time?'. The statements contained in today's paper are very consistent with information given to me almost a year ago by people who are vitally interested in this area. As we know from the statement given last October, the drafting had commenced at that time and the decisions were at a very advanced stage. I think we are entitled to say, `Are these matters correct? If not, in what respect are they incorrect?'. It is clear that the scheme is slowly coming to light, and I would say to the Government it is time it told us exactly what was happening to alleviate the uncertainty. It seems clear that there will be a number of people retrospectively affected if the proposal which has been talked about goes through. I challenge the Government to give an assurance that it will not put people who have worked for the Government, who have been loyal public servants, who have had to retire-most of them most reluctantly-in a position where, not being able to go back into the work force, they may have their situation affected and be less well off than they would have been. I want an assurance that those who are on compensation will not lose their present entitlements. New arrangements for others, by all means, and if the Government is going to put into effect new arrangements which will benefit people already on compensation that is fine but I want an assurance that it will not proceed with any aspect of the legislation that will make them worse off. There is also talk of removing from public servants the right to sue at common law-an absolutely fundamental right. I would like also an assurance that that right will not be taken away from people who have worked, many of them for all their working lives, for the Commonwealth; that they will not be deprived of the opportunity that that entails; and that their families will not be deprived of the opportunity to benefit in a way they would have benefited had they not been injured and had to give up their employment. When people go onto compensation they lose the opportunity to proceed and advance up the scale to earn more, to get more satisfying jobs and have their families to benefit from that. So there are questions which are causing great concern to many of my constituents. I have raised the matter of compensation several times; it is being reported in the newspapers frequently and it is time that the Government gave a clear statement so that the uncertainty that many are suffering is removed and they can get on with their lives knowing what the future holds for them. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(1.26) —I want to finish comments I was making on Tuesday night about my motivations for committing civil disobedience, but before I do that I feel obliged to set the record straight for people who were somewhat surprised by Senator Walsh's divulgence that I had once been a member of the Country Party. How boring it is of him to keep trotting out that old line-which he did not have the guts to do while I was in the chamber; he waited until I had left. Yes, it is true: I was once a member of the Country Party. I was a farmer's daughter, living in a country town, and I was aged 17. The Country Party offered some social life and the opportunity to practise debating-I must say usually on very frivolous topics. So I joined the Country Party and the Junior Farmers. I was in the Country Party for about 18 months. I am not ashamed of that, but it is important to note that I left the Country Party long before I became of voting age, so I never voted for the Country Party, which was part of the coalition which committed Australia to participating in the Vietnam war. In fact I participated in the Vietnam moratorium movement although I was not in the forefront of the organisation. My political activism, centred around grassroots community movements for social change, began in earnest in 1978 after a period of several years overseas. I challenge all senators and members to check back to their political affiliations at age 17 and consider the changes made by many people as they cross the political spectrum. For example, Don Chipp, Liberal Minister for the Navy during the Vietnam war, changed sides completely to become one of Australia's most ardent and respected antinuclear campaigners. People do have changes of heart and ought to be credited for that-if they have moved towards a more enlightened position. Some swap sides for opportunistic reasons. Look at members of our present Cabinet; consider the radical views and level of activism of some of them in their student days and see where they are now-on the right hand edge of a very conservative so-called Labor Government. At least I have moved in what I consider to be an ideologically sound direction. It is a good feeling to be radicalised with age instead of pragmatised. Senator Tambling —It might be a sign of senility. Senator VALLENTINE —I do not think I have reached that stage yet. To get back to what I was saying about civil disobedience, I was using the Pine Gap connection as my rationale for committing civil disobedience. I pointed out that Pine Gap is crucial to the United States nuclear war fighting capabilities because of its functions in receiving and transmitting information and the use of that information for tracking and targeting sites within the Soviet Union-functions to which our Government will not admit. So the United States base in the middle of Australia is used to plan strategies for fighting either a nuclear or a conventional war. I believe that to be immoral and I believe it to be wrong for the Australian Government to continually deceive the Australian people. There has been a great deal of speculation about other disturbing aspects of Pine Gap's operations-the role of the United States National Security Agency and the role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which uses Pine Gap as a listening post to spy on allies, including us, as well as enemies. This includes allegations made by Christopher Boyce, convicted in the United States for treason, who claimed that the CIA was spying on Australia and deceiving Australia on a regular basis. His allegations have never been disproved. The very existence of Pine Gap is offensive to hundreds of thousands of Australians on other grounds as well. Firstly, it makes a nuclear target out of the people of Alice Springs, a fact which the Australian Government admits to but is prepared to accept-very strange indeed, and not of very much comfort to the people of Alice Springs, who must be considered expendable in the event of nuclear war. Secondly, it is an abrogation of Australia's sovereignty. There is an embarrassing history of Australian ignorance about what goes on at Pine Gap, even at prime ministerial level. John Gorton did not have a clue what was going on there, and did not seem to care, either. Thirdly, it is a denial of the rights of Aboriginals and other Australians to a huge chunk of territory in the middle of the Australian landscape. It is a violation of Aboriginal links with the land and a desecration of the living heart of our country. The overriding objection remains, however, that Pine Gap is a crucial part of the United States war machine. It is the eyes and ears of the United States military command. It ties Australia into actions which are immoral, illegal and insane. Preventing its use for these negative purposes therefore becomes a moral obligation. Raising public awareness about the real functions of the base is vitally important. There is still a great deal about Pine Gap which is secret but more people are asking questions. Ultimately, the Government must provide some answers. Civil disobedience is an important part of the educative process for the wider public. As I said previously, Nuremberg obliges us to act. While we have the freedom of choice to act in this manner, I believe it is encumbent upon us to ensure that our Government is not involved in such immoral acts as preparation for genocide. Civil disobedience is a statement of commitment to the prevention of the greatest catastrophe imaginable, the use of nuclear weapons. Some people criticise me as a senator for getting involved in this last resort method. They say to me, `You are meant to be a law maker, not a law breaker'. In answer to that I can only say that my conscience demands me above all to seek the truth non-violently. Gandhi put it very well: There are moments in your life when you must act. The still small voice within must always be the final arbiter when there is a conflict of duty. Sitting suspended from 1.32 to 2 p.m. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Acting Attorney-General, and it is about the Solicitor-General's opinion on the Blewett affair. Who gave the Solicitor-General his instructions? When were the instructions given? What was in the brief given to the Solicitor-General? Will the Minister table the brief? Will any further opinions or reports from either the Solicitor-General, the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) also be tabled at the appropriate time? Finally, in view of the fact that a police report has been called for, why was the Solicitor-General's opinion sought before all of the facts had been collected? Senator TATE —I asked the Solicitor-General to prepare an opinion in this matter, and I did so late on the evening of-I forget the exact date, but I think it was two nights ago; in other words the night of the statement by Dr Blewett to the House of Representatives chamber. Senator Lewis —Before or after he spoke? Senator TATE —After he spoke in the chamber. It was very late at night-it might have been about 11 o'clock or something like that-that we tried to contact Dr Gavan Griffith. The fact is that there is no written request by me, or brief, in that sense. What I asked Dr Gavan Griffith to supply was an opinion on the matters in issue relating to the communication from the Health Insurance Commission to the office of the Minister for Community Services and Health, and in turn from his office to the honourable member for Canning, of certain material relating to medical services profiles. I provided to the Solicitor-General the text of the statement made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Community Services and Health and the minute dated 7 January 1988 from the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I believe that document had been tabled during the course of Dr Blewett's statement to the House of Representatives. The relevant statute appeared to be the Health Insurance Act 1973, but I then asked the Solicitor-General to advise on the position of the Minister in relation to that matter on the basis of the material contained in those documents, namely, Dr Blewett's statement to the House of Representatives and the minute of 7 January 1988. The honourable senator asked whether any further reports of the Australian Federal Police or the DPP will be tabled. The answer remains that which I gave, I think, in the course of a matter of public importance (MPI) earlier this week on a different investigation being carried out by the Australian Federal Police, and that was that the Australian Federal Police, having carried out its investigation and having compiled a report, make an assessment of whether an offence has been committed or not, but pass that report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is then, as I said to the Senate chamber during that MPI, for the DPP to determine, in his quite unfettered discretion and independently of any political pressure whatsoever-and, of course, that is why he was given the great autonomy and independence of his office by this Parliament-when he decides there should not be a prosecution, whether reasons should be given. I suppose that if he decides that a prosecution should go ahead, once again the report would not be made available because the whole matter would then be sub judice. The honourable senator asked: In view of the fact that a police report had been called for, why was the Solicitor-General's opinion sought? It was sought to enable the Prime Minister to discharge his responsibilities as the Leader of the Government. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Acting Attorney-General. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that on 9 March 1973, listed on page 2824 of the Queensland Hansard, volume 261, as the then member for Everton, I asked the following question of the then Minister for Works and representing Police, Max Hodges: Was the Crime Intelligence Unit warned six weeks ago that the bombing of restaurants and night clubs was to take place in this State and that after the Torino club had been bombed Whiskey Au Go Go would be the next. The answer from Minister Hodges was `no'. I now ask the Minister whether he can advise the Senate of the contents of the Commonwealth Police advice to the Queensland Police concerning the possibility of a fire at the Whiskey Au Go Go nightclub. To whom was that advice given and under what circumstances was it made available? Did the Acting Commissioner of the Queensland Police, or the now retired police officer Sid Atkinson, or any person, have access to that advice? Senator TATE —I am advised by the Australian Federal Police that on 26 February 1973 the Commonwealth Police in Brisbane received information through an informant that two brothers in Sydney were making threats against certain clubs and that they intended to fire bomb the Whiskey Au Go Go nightclub in Brisbane. On 27 February 1973 two Commonwealth Police officers visited Queensland Police headquarters and passed the information received to a detective sergeant of the Crime Intelligence Unit. On the day after the fire bombing the Commonwealth Police Commissioner wrote to his Queensland counterpart providing certain internal Commonwealth Police documents relating to the information which had earlier been passed orally to the Queensland Police. It is not known which members of the Queensland Police Force had access to the information once it was passed to that organisation. Senator BISHOP —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. In the light of Mr Unsworth today authorising his own television advertisement entitled `On the Right Track' and withdrawing the usual authorisation of Stephen Loosley, and today being the day on which the Australian Federal Police (AFP) is to hand its report on the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd-Young-Loosley affair to the Director of Public Prosecutions, I ask: First, was Mr Unsworth privy to the contents of the Federal Police report; and secondly, will the Minister act, despite his earlier answer, to move to ensure that that report is made public either immediately or at least before the election, as called for today by the shadow Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Short, and the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Reith? Senator TATE —To my knowledge there is no foundation whatsoever for the scurrilous suggestion that has been made in the question that Mr Unsworth, the Premier of New South Wales, has been provided with a confidential Australian Federal Police report. As I say, the report has certainly not come to me, nor to Senator Robert Ray, the Minister with responsibility for the Australian Electoral Commission. On my understanding it will be provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions-the honourable senator says today, but I do not know whether it will be today. However, I have seen some Press speculation to that effect. The fact is that the suggestion, may I also comment, carries an implication that perhaps somebody in the Australian Federal Police may have leaked the report to Premier Unsworth for some reason or another, and I totally reject that suggestion. As I have already answered, in relation to the further question of the tabling of the report, the provision of the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions puts Mr Ian Temby in the position of making an assessment as to whether a prosecution should or should not go ahead. Mr Temby's office is safeguarded against political interference, and I am sure that this chamber would wish that position to be absolutely maintained. In that situation, the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions whether to publish reasons, should he decide not to prosecute, is one for him alone. He may choose to do so. It is within his quite uninfluenced discretion so to do. Senator BISHOP —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In the light of Senator Tate's answer, will he indicate to the Senate whether he expects Mr Temby to make that decision in the interests of alleviating suspicion as to political pressure before the State election is called? Senator TATE —I refuse to make any such request of Mr Temby. I have absolute confidence in his integrity and ability in dealing with these matters. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Finance, either in that capacity or in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to certain information that the Minister has released this week relating to fiscal imbalances which have been identified by the Queensland Government in its Budget sector and that Government's efforts to rectify those imbalances. Given the implications for the national economy of continued large deficits and excessive borrowing requirements by the States, can the Minister provide any information as to the indications of whether Queensland's efforts to rectify those imbalances will be successful? What indications are there that Queensland's own pace of adjustment will be as swift as is required to contribute effectively to adjustment in the national economy? Senator WALSH —I have here another attachment to the Queensland Cabinet submission to which I referred earlier this week. The Senate will remember that the submission itself was only about 1 1/2 pages. I said I understood that it was necessary to keep such submissions very short because Queensland Cabinet Ministers cannot read without moving their lips and therefore can read only to themselves. I have been assured by a member of the Queensland Parliament that that is literally true. Senator Boswell —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to read from stolen goods from the Queensland Cabinet, and to base an answer on them? The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —I must remember to keep my eye on Senator Boswell to see whether he has that particular attribute of Queensland Cabinet Ministers. This attachment lists a number of topics which it is suggested could be subjected to either greater efficiency or expenditure reductions-savings in one way or another. The items which have been brought forward to the top of the list survey where there seems to be a great deal of duplication between State Government departments, such as in the areas of valuation, which is currently done principally for local governments-if that function were cut out it would have to be picked up by local government-and government printing. The submission indicates clearly that there is considerable confusion in the mind of the Queensland Under-Treasurer. He does not seem to understand that a government printer who retains his captive market-that is, government departments-cannot be regarded as a commercial printer. Sir Leo Heilscher seems to think that the principle of commercialism and retention of the captive market are quite compatible. That would suggest that the thought processes of National Party Ministers have rubbed off on him as well and that double-speak is as common in the Queensland bureaucracy as it is in the Queensland Government. The attachment mentions a few other trivial things such as the Government garage and convenience food facilities. It is unlikely, to say the least, that the list in total will go anywhere near to addressing the prospective deficits of $160m to $215m over the next couple of years that the submission identified. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that there will be a very substantial increase in Queensland Government taxes over the next couple of years-that is, unless Senator Stone cares to address himself to the problems and tell the Queensland Government how to sort them out. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a former distinguished senator, Neville Bonner. On behalf of all senators, I wish him well on this visit to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations to Mr Willis's statement in the House of Representatives last Wednesday when he said: It remains our policy to try to bring the rate of growth in wages and the unit labour costs in Australia as close to our trading partners' as we possibly can. I would add that I agree with that as a policy objective. I ask the Minister: Given Australia's poor overall productivity performance and the fact that our nominal unit labour costs are growing at more than twice the rate of the average of our major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners, can he outline the consequences to Australia of a 6 per cent guaranteed minimum wage increase, which would be the result if the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) achieved its goal of increases based on the prospective inflation rate? What would be the impact on our international competitiveness? Senator BUTTON —That is a question which can only be described as hypothetical in every possible ramification. The fact of the matter is that the effect on productivity of any wage increase depends very much on what the trade-offs are, and that has yet to be determined. Government wages policy has changed over the last five years, but on each occasion when a change was foreshadowed the Opposition prophesied great gloom. That has not eventuated. The fact of the matter is that there has been a significant reduction in real unit labour costs in this country such as has not been seen in the political life of the country before this Government was elected. I just have to remind honourable senators that real wages increased in 1982-83 by 15 per cent. That occurred under the residue of the former Government which is still here in opposition, with the addition of Senator Stone, who no doubt advised that Government on these matters at the time. We have the collection on the other side left. The comparison is very instructive and important. In terms of what is happening in respect of the new wage system to be negotiated, the question of trade-offs in respect of productivity will be immensely important. If Senator Chaney seeks to make the point that we do not compare with the best possible examples overseas, I concede that. That is true and, as Mr Willis said, we have to take that into account. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I realise that in a supplementary question I cannot canvass the many comments which could be challenged in the Minister's answer, but I remind the Minister that I asked the question based on a statement of his ministerial colleague Mr Willis, who said that it was his Government's policy-the Government of Senator Button, Mr Willis and the rest of them-`to try to bring the rate of growth in wages and unit labour costs as close to our trading partners' as we possibly can'. Is the Minister, in his answer, conceding that the sorts of wage rises which would follow if we applied the principles expressed by the ACTU yesterday could only be justified if there were trade-offs which ensured that there were productivity increases which would absorb the wage level increases sought? Senator BUTTON —If Senator Chaney does not realise it, he is one of the few who do not. What was said yesterday by the ACTU was a basic approach to its negotiating position relating to wages. What Mr Willis said in the Parliament last week was an indication of the concern which the Government will address in its negotiating position in relation to wages. Senator Chaney —Be frank about it. Senator BUTTON —What does Senator Chaney mean when he says, `Be frank about it.'? What is he talking about? The fact is that those are the two positions. Those negotiations have to take place. I will not prejudice the outcome of those negotiations by adding any more to that point. Those are the two positions which the relevant parties have adopted. Senator Chaney —They are widely different positions. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney can interpret them in that way if he wishes. It is very difficult-if I might use a popular phrase-to rush to judgment about that issue at this stage. We will await the outcome of the negotiations and no doubt we will be asked more questions when they are completed. Senator AULICH —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. I note that he was one of the few media commentators who, early in the evening of the last Federal election, was correct in predicting the final results. At what time on the night of the recent Adelaide by-election did the Australian Electoral Commission have a reasonable indication of the likely final result? What system of comparing current results with previous results is employed by the Electoral Commission in the preparation of advice to candidates and the public on election night? Has the Electoral Commission been examining methods of improving its methods of assessing likely results as the counting of votes progresses on the night? Senator ROBERT RAY —During the Adelaide by-election the Electoral Commission trialed a completely different method of collating the results. Normally, when booth figures are received they are tabulated in some way and put on the board. I must say that during the last election at times that method was not only slow but also in some cases misleading. On this occasion the Commission fed into the computer the progressive preferred vote from the 11 July election, fed in the figures for each booth and distributed preferences using about the same methodology that applied on 11 July. That meant that at one point on the night-at 7.41 p.m., in fact-a preferred vote swing figure of 8.94 per cent came up. That occurred about an hour and 40 minutes after the booths closed. It did not vary all night beyond about 0.3 per cent around that final preferred vote swing figure. The task that now confronts us is whether, as we can always do that in a by-election, we can do a similar thing on a Federal election night which would involve 148 Federal electorates. That is something that we will work on with a view to getting a little more rational analysis of election results on the night. We are quite confident that it can be done. We will trial it during other by-elections, although I hope that we do not have to trial it during a full Senate election in New South Wales in the future. That might be just a little too difficult. I do not think, by the way, that any computer methodology or any other methodology could give us a clear idea of Senate results on the night. It is really best to wait for six or eight weeks and read about it in the paper. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices. In view of the opposition to privatisation expressed by the Government's advisory council on consumer affairs, the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council, and the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, will the Government take up the suggestion of the advisory council that, where the sale of a public enterprise is being considered, a consumer impact statement should be mandatory? Will the Minister ensure that such a consumer impact statement will investigate the questions of efficiency and pricing, particularly with regard to whether private enterprise would be necessarily any more efficient or any less costly; state clearly what the Government would do to maintain services to minority groups; and demonstrate how it would help consumers if cross-subsidisation, as applies, for instance, to Telecom Australia users, were to be discontinued? Senator BOLKUS —There are a couple of points I would like to make at the outset in answering this question. It is very pleasing for me to be asked a question by the Australian Democrats on the subject of consumer affairs. I have spent the last 10 days trying to find out from them who their official shadow spokesperson is. Today someone has actually stood up. The other point I would like to make is that it is very pleasing to note that the Democrats have taken a much more constructive attitude to this paper than the one taken by Senator Alston yesterday. After the matter was brought to my attention yesterday I spent some time last night going through the document. The position that the Government has on this matter, and the one that Senator Haines has pinpointed very well, is that the debate is a current debate and the Government has welcomed comment from the full spectrum of society. In the context of this debate it is quite apparent that the views of consumers will be very closely considered by the Government. Obviously, the report presented by the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council will be pivotal in the Government's deliberations. The points that Senator Haines raised come from paragraph 59 and the conclusion of the report of the Advisory Council. I am sure that in the next few months those reports will be at the forefront of discussions. The point I want to make in closing is that we should keep this debate in context. As we have discovered in recent days, the Government is responsive to the interests, attitudes and needs of consumers. In relation to the history of governments in this country, our attitude of responsiveness is totally different from the attitude shown by the Opposition. Senator HAINES —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am delighted that the Minister actually got around to reading the report last night, since it is an integral part of his portfolio. I did not ask him whether he was going to consider or take anything on board; I asked whether the Government will actually do something about consumers' needs and opinions in future. Senator BOLKUS —I think it is quite apparent to Senator Haines, amongst others, that the whole question of privatisation has not been debated. Since the supplementary question was asked on a hypothetical basis I will not proceed to answer it. Senator McKIERNAN —Is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware that the South African Government has introduced sweeping restrictions on 17 opposition organisations, including the major political group, the United Democratic Front, as well as several human rights groups? These restrictions also apply to the black trade union movement. What is the Australian Government's position on these worrying developments? Will the Government make clear to the South African authorities the abhorrence with which Australians view such acts of political oppression? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government condemns in the strongest possible terms-I expect this position to be shared on a bipartisan basis across the entire Parliament-the imposition of draconian restrictions on 17 opposition political groups in South Africa including the major anti-apartheid umbrella group, the United Democratic Front. We also condemn in the strongest possible terms the very serious constraints on the elementary political rights of major black trade unions which have been imposed. The restrictions effectively prohibit political activities by opposition groups that do not operate within the apartheid system. They also attempt to limit the work of human rights organisations which have seriously embarrassed the Pretoria authorities through revelations of continuing widespread imprisonment without trial, mistreatment of detainees and the detention and ill-treatment of children. Over recent months the South African authorities have tried, by severe security measures and Press censorship, to conceal from the outside world the scope and effectiveness of political opposition to apartheid. These new measures reveal that effective opposition has continued even in the face of such heavy-handed repression. The Australian Government believes that only by ending apartheid can confrontation and the risk of spiralling violence and suffering be avoided in South Africa. This in turn can only be achieved through genuine dialogue and the emergence of a spirit of reconciliation across the entire political spectrum. These new restrictions show that the South African authorities are prepared for political change only on their own terms. They are moving, tragically, even further away from reconciliation and they risk increasing the violence that they are allegedly designed to curb. One could only agree with the very dramatic expression of the concern of opposition groups in South Africa, as reported in the last day or so, that the lights are going out in South Africa as a result of these developments. The United States has already expressed concern over these developments. In relation to our expression of concern, I have directed, in my capacity as Acting Foreign Minister, that immediate steps be taken to register Australia's grave concern with the South African Government through the Australian Ambassador in South Africa. I have also instructed the acting head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to call in the South African Ambassador later this afternoon to make known in appropriate terms the views of the Australian Government. Senator BROWNHILL —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to his answer on Monday to Senator Messner's question concerning the internal Telecom Australia note circulated by Mr Guthrie which stated that the restructuring of Telecom had been postponed until after the New South Wales State election. The Minister will recall that he said that Mr Guthrie's statement was `completely false'. Is the Minister aware of the comments by Mr Kevin Fothergill, the Secretary of the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association, on yesterday's PM program? He said that the directive to suspend the change process-that is, the restructuring of Telecom-came from representatives in the Federal Government to the highest echelons of Telecom and passed down the line by word of mouth. Can the Minister explain whether or not there has been any postponement of the Telecom change process due to political intervention or for any other reason? Have there been any discussions between the Government and Telecom over the past few weeks concerning a possible postponement of the change process? If so, what was the nature of those discussions? Have there been any other memos or internal notes circulated within Telecom or its agencies advising that the change process had been postponed until further notice or until after the New South Wales State election? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Mr Fothergill did say what Senator Brownhill said he said-I did not hear the broadcast-then Mr Fothergill was talking, as so often in recent weeks, through his hat. The truth of the matter is that there has been no such direction, no such discussion even, so far as the change process is concerned, except of the most tangential kind in which I positively encourage Mr Ward to continue the process of consultation and development of options that is associated with that particular process, as is articulated in his minute which I tabled in this place the other day. There is no question of any such intervention of the kind that Senator Brownhill has suggested. I state that point absolutely and unequivocally. Senator BROWNHILL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question: Can the Minister explain the fact that a spokesperson for Telecom was referred to on the PM program as saying that the change process had been postponed for a few weeks? Senator GARETH EVANS —No. I do not begin to understand the workings of the minds of some Telecom spokesmen from time to time. Senator Boswell —You are supposed to be in charge. You want to find out. Senator GARETH EVANS —Thanks, Ron. I will take that very much into account next time round. Any help you can give me in that respect will be very much appreciated. Senator WOOD —In the brave hope that this is not my last day or my last question in the Senate, I address my question to the Minister for Home Affairs. Is the Minister aware that a notification by the High Court of Australia appeared in the Canberra Times giving notice for Wednesday, 2 March of the case referred to it by the Senate? Is the Minister aware that this notice appeared in the positions vacant column in the Canberra Times? Does this indicate that the High Court has already reached a decision on this matter and is, in fact, inviting applicants for the position? Secondly, is the Minister aware that, according to the notice, the sitting is due at 2.15 a.m.? Does this indicate that the High Court has not sufficient resources to meet properly and needs to sit through the night, or does it indicate that the High Court is wishing to discourage vexatious petitioners or others who may wish to lay claim to the vacant seat? Senator ROBERT RAY —I think Senator Wood can at least have some satisfaction that he was not in the obituary columns of the Canberra Times. It is true that that advertisement was placed in the situations vacant column, but I did read today's Canberra Times and it is under the public notices. However, I also note that all other advertisements refer to 2.15 a.m. I understand that this is because Senator Chaney is going to address the National Gallery across the road and we are expecting a long speech. Everyone would like to be there to hear his great assessment of his favourite work of art. I think it is just one of those normal problems of `typos' that come up. A few things have been left out, if it is in the situations vacant column. It has not said that the situation is worth $48,000 a year, that we have to work 90 hours a week and that we have to put up with Senator Boswell. Senator PATTERSON —I address my question to the Acting Attorney-General. I draw the Minister's attention to section 130 of the Health Insurance Act, which states: A person shall not, directly or indirectly, except in performance of his duties . . . make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information with respect to the affairs of another person . . . What is the purpose of having this secrecy provision? In the opinion of the Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith, QC, the Minister administering the Act is not responsible for the release through his office of such confidential information. If the Minister is not responsible for the secrecy provisions, who is? Senator TATE —I do not wish to add to the legal opinion that has been provided by the Solicitor-General, who is the most eminent practitioner-- Senator Peter Baume —That is not what she asked you. Senator TATE —I have been asked to comment on the Solicitor-General's interpretation of section 130 in so far as it relates to a Minister's responsibility. In the event of that question being asked, as I understand it, the honourable senator trying to elucidate my understanding of the relationship of section 130 to ministerial responsibility and in the course of the question disputing the Solicitor-General's understanding of that relationship, I have no comment to make. Senator PATTERSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I will repeat the question: If the Minister is not responsible for the secrecy provision-and the secrecy provision is there-who is responsible? That is the question I was asking. Senator TATE —The statutes of the Parliament must be observed by all. The function of the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions is to ensure that, if there has been no adherence to those provisions, the person or persons concerned in breaching them are brought before a court. The responsibility in relation to that particular statute-if its overall structure and requirements rest with anyone-rests with the Parliament which has made that particular statute. The fact is that the responsibility to adhere to the provision rests on all those who may be required to adhere to it. It is as simple as that. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the January 1988 official newspaper of the Australian Bicentennial Authority which has been published as part of the Authority's Sports 88 program? Is he aware that, of the 16 photographs in the publication, only one features a woman and that is the national co-ordinator of the sports and recreation program? Is he concerned that women are very poorly represented in this publication? Senator BUTTON —My attention has been drawn, in an unusual way perhaps, to the publication in question. I understand that the Australian Bicentennial Authority has produced a number of publications of this kind on sport and recreation activities. Following Senator Crowley's representations to the Authority, it has been acknowledged that her complaint about the inadequate portrayal of women in sport within these publications has some foundation. The Authority has agreed to devote greater attention to women in sport in future publications of the newsletter. It will also investigate the possibility of extending the Authority's involvement in certain women's sporting activities. The Australian Bicentennial Authority has also pointed out that $340,000 of the Sports 88 allocation of $4.5m has been directed towards events specifically for women. That is in addition to grants for sporting events which involve both men and women. In concluding my answer, I think I should point out that the work of the Australian Bicentennial Authority straddles a difficult period of history, because in some ways perhaps it represents 200 years of bad history and, hopefully, it is trying to represent a future where the mistakes of the past are not repeated. Senator Stone —Oh, come on! There has been nothing good in 200 years? Senator BUTTON —What I am saying-I do not think this would be disputed even by Senator Stone-is that the position of women in Australian society has not been-- Senator Stone —Don't ally yourself with the guilt industry in this matter. Senator BUTTON —I am not allying myself with the guilt industry. I understand the nature of the guilt industry, and I do not think I belong to it. I am making an observation which I think is shared by 99 per cent of this community. Senator NEWMAN —I remind the Minister for Justice that on 22 February, in answer to a question asked by Senator Hill about the allegations made by a former National Crime Authority (NCA) Commissioner, Mr Max Bingham, that the work of the National Crime Authority in Queensland had been white-anted and that an undercover squad had to be withdrawn, he said: It is not my policy to discuss the operations of the National Crime Authority publicly. Can the Minister advise why the Government's policy of not discussing publicly operations and investigations was not adhered to by the Prime Minister this week when he admitted that his friend, Sir Peter Abeles, was under investigation by the National Crime Authority and ventured his opinion as to Sir Peter's innocence of wrongdoing? Is it not correct that the real reason that the Minister refuses to confirm the serious allegations made by Mr Max Bingham is that Mr Bingham's allegations are only too embarrassingly true? When will the Minister follow the Prime Minister's example and answer publicly legitimate concerns about the operations of the National Crime Authority? Will the Minister at last admit that the tightening up of procedures in the liaison contact role is insufficient to prevent the corruption in State police forces from compromising the operations of the National Crime Authority? Senator TATE —I may not have got down a note of all of the elements of Senator Newman's question. The honourable senator asked a question based on the so-called revelations of Mr Max Bingham, purportedly drawn on some knowledge he obtained as a member of the National Crime Authority. In so far as that was part of the framework of the question, my reply, which does not satisfy Senator Newman, was: . . . it is not my policy to discuss the operations of the National Crime Authority publicly. From the outset I have been kept fully briefed by the Chairman of the Authority on developments in the matter and I do not believe that the public interest will be best served in this instance by further public comment. That is the answer I gave Senator Newman last week. It is the answer to which I returned and gave Senator Hill also. Those words were supplied to me by Mr Justice Stewart before Senator Newman asked her question last week, as I think I explained to the chamber previously. It is for that reason that I adopted that particular set of words; I believe they are the words which best convey the need for me as the Minister with responsibility for the National Crime Authority to maintain the confidentiality of briefings I receive about the operations of the Authority. In so far as reference was then made by the honourable senator to the Prime Minister, I have not seen the portion of the Hansard record to which Senator Newman referred. Therefore, I cannot comment on whether the Prime Minister commented in any way on an NCA operation. When I took to the Inter-Governmental Committee last November, I think it was, the proposals for the tightening of the procedures leading to the appointment of liaison officers between the State police forces, the Northern Territory police force, the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority-proposals which Senator Newman had characterised as trivial and as not of any great consequence-they were perceived by the ministerial members of that Inter-Governmental Committee, who were not by any means merely members of Australian Labor Party governments throughout Australia, as going a long way towards ensuring the integrity of the operations of the National Crime Authority undertaken in a way which required liaison with those other police forces in the various jurisdictions around Australia. It is clear that that is not the only step that ought to be taken, but it was a very significant step. It was thought by those Ministers, by the police commissioners and by the National Crime Authority itself to be a very good, proper and effective proposal which, you may recall, Mr President, enabled the National Crime Authority to enter into negotiations with a State before the liaison officer was appointed so that in fact the National Crime Authority would have an effective veto over the appointment of a person who might be nominated. It provided that the nominee ought to be a particular person rather than merely a holder of high office within the police force concerned. Those proposals were accepted. Senator NEWMAN —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister whether the measures which he has outlined again today and which he has outlined in the past are sufficient. I am glad to note that he recognises that there may be more to do, but I have always asked him to outline the further steps he proposes to take. I further ask: Was the Prime Minister not aware of this policy? Has the Minister brought the Prime Minister into line? Senator TATE —I have no intention of speaking to the Prime Minister about this matter. As to the general question of the protection of the integrity of the National Crime Authority from the possibility of compromise in carrying out its operations and protecting its witnesses, which I know is of great concern to this chamber-that matter was manifest in several questions asked last year, particularly by Senator Robert Hill-the fact is that the National Crime Authority undertakes its own procedures with a certain degree of meticulousness. I think that reflects very much the character of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, who is painstaking in his attention to the need to ensure that the National Crime Authority operates in such a way that it cannot be disrupted or in any way infiltrated by corrupt elements. I cannot go into the methods which are employed by Mr Justice Stewart and the members of the Authority to achieve that objective; nor, indeed, have I been-- Senator Newman —You have already got the problems. You will not admit to them. What are you going to do about them? Senator TATE —I am saying that Mr Justice Stewart and the members of the Authority are currently employing a whole range of methodologies-they have employed them in the past and will do so in the future-which are designed to achieve the protection which the honourable senator quite rightly seeks. Given the experience that has now been built up after several years of operation, no doubt those particular protective devices are being continually refined. Senator Hill —They have been, and we know they have failed. Senator TATE —I say that they are being continually refined. The National Crime Authority has achieved such success and has obviously protected its operations to such an extent that this Parliament will be called upon shortly to extend its term of life. The Government intends to introduce legislation to repeal the sunset clause which presently will bring the National Crime Authority to an end on 30 June 1989. That legislation fulfils an election promise of the Prime Minister and, indeed, is supported by the Opposition. We believe that the National Crime Authority has had a tremendous impact in curtailing and disrupting organised crime in Australia. We look forward to the Parliament's support for the continuation of its very effective efforts. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister for Consumer Affairs inform the Senate as to what action the Government is taking to prevent consumers being charged excessive interest rates, which in some instances have reached almost 200 per cent? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Childs raises a question that is of great concern to the Government, particularly in view of the excessive rates charged by some, albeit a very small number of loan sharks, but also because of the alarming proportions that consumer debt has reached in this country, the most recent estimates from the Reserve Bank of Australia estimating its level at $23 billion. The primary responsibility for the regulation of the provision of credit rates rests with the States, but despite this a number of initiatives have been taken by government, both at State and Federal level, to address the problems involved. One avenue of recourse has been through a co-operative approach by States in the production of uniform credit legislation. This has been developed through the standing committee of consumer affairs Ministers. Legislation has provided, amongst other things, the ensuring of adequate precontractual disclosure of information about the effective rates of interest, prohibiting penalty clauses, and requiring credit providers to be licensed. As well, there are other provisions in the law which allow for contracts to be reopened because of unconscionability. There are also provisions in the Trade Practices Act which indirectly provide relief to consumers, prohibiting corporations from engaging in false or misleading or unconscionable conduct. However, there are two initiatives on the immediate agenda which the Government hopes will both have an effect in terms of redressing some of the problems directly as well as having an educative effect on the community. In early April the Government will be hosting a national forum on consumer credit. This forum will bring together a whole range of representatives, including industry representatives from the banking and financial sectors together with trade unions and consumer groups. That forum will be the upcoming focal point of the Federal Government's activity in terms of education and co-operation with the sectors involved in consumer debt. As I said, though, the main responsibility rests with the States. Here I wish to mention the activities particularly in New South Wales where the State Minister for Consumer Affairs, Deirdre Grusovin, has taken a lead. Opposition senators-Oh! Senator BOLKUS —Obviously from the response I am receiving, Opposition senators do not seem to be concerned about constructive matters that are of concern to the citizens of New South Wales. Opposition senators can come in here with fabricated questions and delve in the gutter, but this is a basic issue that is of concern to the people of New South Wales. Those opposite would best serve their colleagues in New South Wales by listening quietly to the answer. As I said, Deidre Grusovin, the New South Wales Minister for Consumer Affairs, has taken the lead. Earlier this month she announced that the Commercial Tribunal in New South Wales was holding an inquiry into interest rates. This inquiry is due to report in mid-March and is already embarking on taking evidence from industry and consumer representatives. The question raised by Senator Childs was specifically related to loan sharks. We at Federal level are pleased that Minister Grusovin has responded very quickly to a couple of instances involving loan sharks in New South Wales. One moneylender, a firm called Walter Pugh Pty Ltd, was forced to reduce its interest rates from a startling 144.4 per cent to a more reasonable 29 per cent, all because of the activities of the Tribunal. Another company, Nartic Finance Co. in Newcastle, had been charging 170 per cent but its licence was cancelled by the Tribunal. The basic point that one should remember in looking at the activities of loan sharks is that in many instances people who have undertaken debts with such companies could have been eligible for loans from other appropriate organisations and could have paid interest rates much lower than those that have been charged. This particular instance highlights the major difference between the sort of approach that the Unsworth Government in New South Wales is taking in the interests of consumers. One can compare that to the hollow, empty policies in this area of an alternative. Senator SHORT —I direct my question to the Acting Attorney-General, and it follows a question asked earlier by Senator Lewis in respect of the opinion provided yesterday by the Solicitor-General on the Blewett affair. I ask: First, did the Minister discuss the matter with the Prime Minister before seeking the opinion from the Attorney-General? Secondly, will he guarantee to the Senate that the Australian Federal Police investigation into the matter will not in any way be inhibited in its ascertaining of the facts, including Dr Blewett's involvement as a result of the Solicitor's opinion given in response to the extraordinary oral and narrow request by the Minister? Thirdly, will he also guarantee that when the Australian Federal Police investigations are completed the facts emerging from that investigation will be conveyed to the Solicitor-General with the request that he provide another opinion which takes into account these facts? Senator TATE —Yes, I did hold discussions with the Prime Minister about the matters arising out of Dr Blewett's statement to the House of Representatives. Secondly, I can give an absolutely categorical and unequivocal guarantee that the Australian Federal Police will not be inhibited in the conduct of the investigation into these matters. Senator Chaney —How do you know that? Senator TATE —In the sense that it is being implied that some sort of undue interference or pressure would be brought to bear to inhibit them in their investigations. As to the third element, no, I will not give a guarantee that that will be the case. The police investigation will be handed to the Director of Public Prosecutions; he will then use that police report to make his decision as to whether the prosecution should go ahead or not. Senator SHORT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the answer to the third part of the question, I ask the Minister: Does that not make an absolute and complete mockery of the opinion received yesterday from the Solicitor-General? Senator TATE —No, I do not believe it does. Senator GIETZELT —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I refer the Minister to a speech made by Senator Peter Baume last Thursday in which he asserted that New South Wales had the lowest retention rate to year 12 of any mainland State. As the honourable senator would know, I have a son who is in level 11 at public school who asserts quite the contrary-that there is a high retention rate in his public school. In those circumstances does the Minister have any information that he could use to elaborate on the relative performance of the States in terms of retention rates? Senator WALSH —The statement made by Senator Peter Baume was accurate as far as it went. It was, however, selective. He referred to the lowest retention rate being in a mainland State, and it is true that that is in New South Wales. But `mainland State' is a term carefully chosen in order to exclude Tasmania, which has a substantially lower retention rate than New South Wales. Indeed, it is a full 14 percentage points lower in Tasmania than it is in New South Wales, Tasmania having the only Liberal Government in this country. The Northern Territory, which again was excluded from Senator Baume's carefully chosen definition of mainland States, has an almost seven percentage points lower retention rate than New South Wales. In both cases that is greater than the difference between the average in the five mainland States and the New South Wales rate. Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr President, I have answers to a couple of questions that were placed on notice. I regret the delay in providing the answers to the question that Senator Boswell asked on 18 December 1987. It was something that I overlooked to chase up, but I now give the following answers to the parts of his question: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) The new Parliament House architects, Mitchell Giurgola and Thorp, were given the additional task of identifying replacement species when it was decided that no further rainforest timbers were to be used. Timber in the possession of manufacturers before 10 August 1987 was acceptable to the project provided it did not contravene provisions of the furniture timber agreement between the Parliament House Construction Authority and the supplier. (d) No. (e) The Parliament House Construction Authority will not use timbers not in the hands of furniture manufacturers by 10 August 1987, unless it can be proven that the timber was supplied from a commercial plantation and not a natural rainforest. (f) The Authority is currently negotiating with suppliers of timber and it is therefore considered premature to make any comment regarding the legal position of any of the parties. (g) Additional total costs are estimated at between $500,000 and $1.4m. The final costs will depend on the outcome of negotiations mentioned in (f) above. (h) The Minister does not think the situation shows a lack of consultation. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator MacGibbon asked me a question yesterday, and I give him the following response: All relevant matters raised by Captain W. Owen, a retired naval officer, in the December issue of Defence 2000 were fully addressed during the evaluation and source selection processes leading to the selection of the Type 471 design and award of contract to the Australian Submarine Corporation on 3 June 1987. The required ships characteristics that formed part of the request for tender issued in 1983 specified that cooling of the main diesel generators shall be performed by a soft freshwater main coupled to a hard sea water heat exchanger. The contract specification for the design of the Type 471 incorporates a soft cooling water system for all equipment required to be operated at deep diving depth. The cooling water system for the diesel generators, which are only required to operate down to periscope depth, does not fall into this category. The Royal Australian Navy is satisfied that the design of those parts of the Type 471 cooling systems which are exposed to external sea pressure is safe. The design of the Type 471 does not incorporate hard water systems of the type that may have contributed to the loss of the Thresher. Senator REYNOLDS —I wish to add to the information I provided on 7 December 1987, in answer to a question by Senator Devereux on country centres project assistance to the channel region in Tasmania. At that time I referred to a number of economic developments in the region including that Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd has also considered reopening or transferring to another company its pulp mill at Port Huon. Australian Paper Manufacturers have recently written to me to advise the current situation of their operations in Port Huon. They advise that after a four-year closure they reopened their pulp mill at Port Huon in August 1986 and it has operated continuously since then. But the Gray Government in Tasmania is seeking to transfer their rights to Crown Eucalypt Wood, upon which the continued operation of their Port Huon operation depends, to another company-Huon Forest Products. My colleague Senator Cook will be in Tasmania tomorrow for discussions with the Tasmanian Government, forestry unions, companies and conservation groups about the development of the Tasmanian forestry industry. I have asked him to raise the question of development of the channel region, and I have his assurance that he will do so. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —by leave-In view of remarks made earlier in Question Time by Senator Bolkus that it took him 10 days to find out who was the spokesperson for the Australian Democrats on consumer affairs and his implication thereby that I, who happen to be that spokesperson, was attempting to hide from him, the Senate or anyone else for that matter, I wish to inform the Senate, first, that had Senator Bolkus contacted the office of my parliamentary leader that information would have been given to him immediately; second, that had Senator Bolkus contacted his predecessor as Minister, with whom my office and I had a very cordial and I think productive relationship, including at our initiative the establishment of a committee of inquiry into victim toys, I am also sure that he would have got that information quite quickly; third, had the Minister monitored the media in his area of responsibility, he would have noticed quite a number of actions by me in that portfolio. Perhaps I can have some sympathy with Senator Bolkus. It is possible that since he carries one portfolio-a junior Ministry at that-he had some difficulty when looking at the list of portfolios of the Australian Democrats finding consumer affairs amongst my other portfolio responsibilities of social security, communications, primary industry, administrative services, local government and consumer affairs. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —I present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: (1) That Orders of the Day relating to Government Papers be called on in groups, as determined by the President. (2) That those Orders of the Day relating to Government Papers which the President calls on and on which no Senator rises to speak be discharged from the Notice Paper. Debate resumed from 14 December 1987, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(3.09) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I want to use this opportunity to speak about how the actions of the Government in deciding to give the North Queensland rainforest World Heritage listing are affecting the lives of so many people in the northern parts of our State of Queensland. What puzzles me is why, when four-fifths of North Queensland tropical rainforests are never to be logged, it is necessary to put the North Queensland tropical rainforests on the World Heritage List at all. The reason why four-fifths are never to be logged is because they are in national parks and sections of timber reserves in State forests which are not available for logging because Queensland has one of the best forest management programs in the world. Last year I visited the north Queensland rainforests. I was taken to an area outside Ravenshoe which had been logged two or three times. It was impossible to see where trees had been felled. By opening up the rainforest to the light the growth of the lovely trees there is encouraged. The area around the Crater National Park, habitat of the rare green possum, has been logged three times, the last time as recently as about 15 years ago. Thousands of tourists who visit this area would think that it was virgin rainforest. I was interested to read in the Courier-Mail some time ago of the first independent study of the effects of World Heritage listing of north Queensland rainforest, compiled by professor of economics at James Cook University, Professor Percy Harris. He maintained that the Federal Government was either misleading Australia about the impact of logging on north Queensland rainforests or it intended to mislead the World Heritage Commission about the rainforests' quality. He said that the Government has claimed that the logging will destroy the integrity and heritage listing qualities of the rainforest but that it also claims that after 100 years of logging, sometimes uncontrolled, the integrity of these forests is still maintained. So both of those claims cannot be true; one of them must be invalid. Of course, I could go on to deal with the number of jobs that will be lost as a direct result of the listing. Professor Harris maintains that about 1,994 jobs will eventually be lost, yet the proposal by the Government would create only 640 jobs in return. Professor Harris went on to say that the sudden cessation of rainforest harvesting will cause immediate and severe regional distress that can be avoided with a more balanced approach. But the Government does not seem to worry about the unemployment which will be caused in the area or the social effects that it certainly is having and will have on the people there. The Government should realise that small towns living off local industries can die. This is the real tragedy for north Queensland and, I would say, for Australia. Senator Richardson is on record as saying that we can afford to save the rainforests, but he does not specify whose rainforests. Australia imports about 10 times more rainforest timber than is produced in north Queensland and I believe it is rather hypocritical to worry about saving our rainforest and yet continue to exploit the rainforests of the Third World. We should consider such factors in relation to the report of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. It seems wrong to me to worry about cutting down only Australian rainforests and not those in other lands. World Heritage listing was a political proposal. There is no doubt about that. Of course, the industry was in a State that has a non-Labor Government. As a senator for Queensland I have been very concerned about the Government's attitude and that is why I have raised this matter in relation to the report before us today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 December 1987, on motion by Senator Lewis That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.15) —I am in continuation on this report. In a ministerial statement of 29 May 1984 the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, the responsible Minister, announced the Government's policy objectives, which were for the development of a sustained and competitive as well as an export orientated automotive industry. This was a noble aim indeed. Unfortunately for the industry, things have tended to go somewhat awry and the limited facts that we have really do not nowadays bear out the Government's confidence in that particular policy thrust. I remind the Minister that all his agencies of government, in fact all agencies of government, have a responsibility to disclose in their annual reports their objectives, their standards, the costs they incur and, if they have any revenue, the revenue they receive, and-this is the important point-the degree to which they have attained the objectives they have been set. This information is missing. I ask why. I would like the Minister's response at the conclusion of my address. In the absence of such detail, many annual reports of government instrumentalities are becoming little more than vehicles for Government propaganda. The report in question is the Automotive Industry Authority annual report of 1986-87. While some information on expenditure has been provided in the report on hand, it is generalised and simply does not provide adequate detail for the layman, the person apart from those who have intimate knowledge of this subject, to make an assessment of the Authority's cost-effectiveness. I would like the Minister to respond to the cost-effectiveness of this Authority because nowhere can we find it in the document before us. Perhaps the Minister can provide us with some ancillary information that could be appended to that report. I remind the Minister-I thank him for his enthusiasm, marked by his note taking-that businesses in the private sector are increasingly called upon to be more accountable to their shareholders. I believe the same principle should apply in that the Automotive Authority should be responsible through the Minister to this Parliament. Increasingly, we are seeing executive government taking over some of the responsibilities which we as parliamentarians should have. We have seen plenty of cases of that and I have cited the Public Accounts Committee as one. Unfortunately for the industry, registrations of commercial and passenger vehicles in 1987 totalled some 451,829 units; that is, 14.8 per cent down on the 1986 figures and 35.1 per cent down on the 1985 total. The result was the worst since 1968. The increase in motor vehicle prices and the depressed market are almost entirely the result of the Government's interference in one way or another. Measures which have contributed to the present difficulties of the automotive industry have included increased sales tax imposed by the Federal Government, increased fuel taxes levied by both State and Federal governments, and the massive devaluation of the Australian dollar. But one of the most detrimental decisions by the Government, which has brought the motor vehicle industry almost to its knees-this is shown by the closure of dealerships and the cutting back of production through the country-is the iniquitous fringe benefits tax. Whatever efforts may have been made by the Minister-and we know that he is trying very hard to reassure the public and the industry-the Government's commitment to development has been scuttled, despite the Minister's best intentions, by iniquitous taxes such as the fringe benefits tax which have been propounded by the Minister's colleagues Senator Walsh and Mr Keating. Since 1985 passenger fleet sales have plummeted by almost 46 per cent. This is having wide ramifications throughout the whole sector. Another fragility of course is the introduction of lead-free petrol. The prospects for the Australian Automotive Industry are unfortunately far from encouraging. These dry but very telling statistics show that there is little light at the end of the tunnel. I would appreciate the Minister's response to show us that the shadows have passed and that the sun is now coming out for this industry. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.20) —I have been invited to respond by Senator Watson. I will do so, because he takes me by surprise. Senator Puplick —I thought you were totally on top of this matter! Senator BUTTON —As a matter of fact, I am. Nonetheless, I was taken by surprise in respect of some particular matters of detail which I would like to give Senator Watson-- Senator Watson —What about the objectiveness of the occupational staffing levels? Senator BUTTON —Senator Watson was looking at the 1986-87 annual report of the Automotive Industry Authority. He expressed disappointment that that report does not indicate outcomes to date. Senator Watson —To the extent to which your objective has been achieved. Senator BUTTON —I begin by reminding Senator Watson of one or two things. The automotive industry plan came into force on 1 January 1985. This report deals with the 1986-87 year. The plan has a considerable life, until 1992. It has that because lead times in the automotive industry are very long. The lead time for the development of a model car is about three, four or five years. It is an industry which operates that way. Only unbounded optimists such as Senator Watson, imbued with a general feeling of confidence about the efficacy of this Government's industry policies, would expect an outcome after such a short period. I am able to update Senator Watson a little, however, as it is now 1988, on some of the progress which has been made. The plan set out to do a number of things. Essentially, it was to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the Australian automotive industry in international terms, to get the industry in a situation where it would be less reliant on tariff protection, something which I know Senator Watson approves of, except when he is talking about a Tasmanian industry. A number of sub-elements of the plan were designed to improve the effectiveness of the industry. The first was that the number of manufacturers should be reduced. I can say now that after three full years of the plan the number of manufacturers has been reduced from five to three, effectively, because of the merger between General Motors-Holden's Ltd and Toyota Motor Corporation and the close co-operation between Nissan Motor Co. (Aust.) Pty Ltd and Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd in model production and so on. The number of models, which was 13 at the time of the plan, has now been reduced to nine, I think, and more reductions in models are in the pipeline, if that is an appropriate expression. The Authority has had a very important conciliatory and persuasive role in this process. It has been very helpful particularly in bringing about those major changes but also in helping the component sector of the industry to adjust to the changes which are taking place. It is true that the market for motor vehicles is down. That reflects the decline in the standard of living of Australians generally. That is not a matter which was integral to the plan. Local production of motor vehicles is up, in spite of a fall in the overall market. That is to say, local producers have taken the lion's share of the reduced market. None have been out of production or in low volume production as they were when the plan was put in place, with disastrous results in terms of employment and so on. Senator Watson mentioned lead-free petrol as being a burden on the industry. That was introduced by his Government, not ours. He mentioned sales tax changes to imported, high-priced models. That is true. That has had an effect on the import size of the market. He mentioned the devaluation which resulted from the Government's decision to float the dollar. There is no conclusive evidence about the contribution of the fringe benefits tax, except in the year of its introduction, to a permanent decrease in the size of the market. Senator Watson —It is permanently down; it has never got back up. Senator BUTTON —No. The effect was in the market of 1985. The fringe benefits tax did have some effect then but a number of other things, particularly the devaluation, have contributed to the decline. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The inter-regional ministerial meeting which was held at Westmead Hospital in Sydney brought together representatives of Australia, New Zealand, a large number of the South East Asian countries, North Asian countries and countries of the South Pacific. It was designed to exchange information about acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) programs and the methods put in place for the control of the spread of the disease AIDS. The conference was opened by His Excellency the Governor-General. The extent to which His Excellency was prepared to participate in this conference indicated not only the significance attached by the Australian Government to this meeting but also His Excellency's commitment to the fight against AIDS. Indeed, the Governor-General is the patron of a number of organisations and foundations which are active in the fight against AIDS. I want to go on record as paying tribute to His Excellency for his willingness to be so identified with this important campaign. There are two other points I wish to make arising from this paper. The first is to note that one of our distinguished colleagues in this place, Senator Peter Baume, was subsequently asked by the World Health Organisation to participate in a series of visits to a number of South Pacific countries to discuss with and advise their public health authorities on the way in which they should go about dealing with this epidemic. That is to Senator Peter Baume's credit and reflects extremely well on this chamber-he was given leave to be away for that period-and his contribution ought also to be noted. Secondly, I draw attention to the fact that the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library has just published three papers. They are: AIDS: The Disease, by Dr R. Panter, of the science, technology and environment group; AIDS: The Social Issues, by Dr John Gardiner-Garden of the education and welfare group and AIDS Related Legislation-Australia, by Elizabeth Ward from the law and government group. Those three papers make a very significant contribution to the ongoing debate and public information about this disease. I have a couple of minor criticisms of the papers; for instance, the extent to which the paper, AIDS Related Legislation does not draw attention to the absence of legislation in a number of States decriminalising homosexual behaviour between consenting adults, which I believe is one of the necessary steps to be taken in the control of this disease. Similarly, the paper AIDS: The Social Issues, in its dealings with the question of prostitution, deals with it exclusively as a question of female prostitution and fails to note the significance, particularly in cities like Sydney, of the problem arising from male prostitution. I would like to table a paper entitled The New AIDS Virus-Ineffective and Unjust Laws, written by His Honour Mr Justice Michael Kirby of the Court of Appeal in New South Wales, which is the extract of an address to a symposium on AIDS held in Paris in October 1987 and which I believe is also a significant contribution to the public debate about this subject and which, together with the three papers I have mentioned from the Parliamentary Library, should be drawn to the attention of honourable senators as a significant contribution. I conclude by congratulating those who were involved in the organisation of this inter-regional ministerial meeting, His Excellency the Governor-General on his participation in that, and Senator Peter Baume for the work he has done arising from that. I appreciate the general attitude taken by the Australian public health authorities towards handling this very significant epidemic, which I believe we in Australia are handling as well as any other country. I hope to have the opportunity to discuss that matter in more detail at some later stage. I seek leave to table the paper. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK —I table the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(3.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to speak briefly to this very wide-ranging report, the annual report for 1986-87 of the Department of Transport. The most important matter I would like to bring before the Senate is the future of road funding. The report states: On 13 May 1987 the Government announced that total expenditure under the ALTP and ABRD . . . would be maintained at the same level as in 1986-87. That amount was $1.25 billion. The report continues. This will be achieved by an adjustment to the ALTP excise rate from 1 July 1987. I point out to the Senate that even though the Government has decided to maintain road funding at 1986-87 levels, the funding for that year was not enough. If it keeps the same figure for 1987-88, that will effectively mean a reduction of about 10 per cent in road funding. This is a serious matter because of the developing mining areas and other developments all around Australia. There should be at least one other category called, for example, `Development roads'. A lot of money is needed on those roads, especially in the small shires in which big mines suddenly crop up overnight. Those shires cannot cope with the increased traffic. All they can do is let the state of the roads run down and hope that the mines will pitch in with some funds to keep them in a reasonable state. I would also like to pay tribute to the Australian bicentennial road development program. The sunset clause of the legislation which brought this in will come into effect towards the end of this year. The Government has already decided to carry on with this very worthwhile program that has improved at least the main roads throughout Australia over the last five years. This was one of the measures brought in by Prime Minister Fraser that will be remembered for many years to come. I commend the Government for keeping the program going. It just cannot afford to go backwards otherwise the condition of those main roads will deteriorate. Anyone who has been on the main roads in the north-west of Western Australia, in north Queensland or in the Northern Territory will see how good that scheme is. The report mentions fast-track road transport and graduated truck driver licences, a scheme being implemented by State and Territory governments. As someone who has taught and employed a lot of truck drivers over the years, I applaud that move and hope it is introduced throughout Australia. The National Association of Australian State Road Authorities report on road vehicle limits was brought down and all States except New South Wales and Victoria agreed. This system would cover the whole of Australia. Road vehicle limits certainly have to be looked at, to bring into line throughout Australia the degrees of mass, speed and size. There are too many problems with trucks loading up in one State and then crossing the boarder and being over the limit. Another good aspect that is mentioned is that the Department of Transport made a submission to the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.36) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 24 February, on motion by Senator Teague: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.37) —When papers were tabled in the Senate yesterday I moved that the Senate take note of the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority for 1986-87, and I will now continue the remarks I began yesterday. The first and essential point I was making is that in the annual report, which covers the period up until June 1987, there is no information at all that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Council was inadequate or that it was doing anything other than making an important contribution to the work of the Authority. As is well known, some $150m is spent through the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. There are nine secondary colleges, 18 high schools, 67 primary schools and four special schools. There are thousands of teachers. Indeed, the Authority is the government primary and secondary schools system in the national capital. In the 10 years of the existence of the Authority there has been a Council, and that Council has had full authority in the running of those schools. The annual report that was tabled in the Senate this week even has a full chapter setting out the work of the Council, beginning on page 18. There we find that the Council made various contributions in relation to the Chief Education Officer, in fulfilling the objectives that are set out in the appendix to the report, in equity considerations, in planning for school provision, in quality education and in regard to staffing and services for students with special needs. In one of the appendices to the annual report the attendance of the Council is set out. The Chairman, Dr Don Anderson, attended 18 out of 18 meetings, and so did some other members of the Council. In fact the average attendance was about 16 1/2 out of 18 meetings. So the sacking of the Council is not on the grounds of inadequate attendance, lack of importance of what the Council has done for those 10 years, or indeed in the last full year of the work of the Council, and it is not on the grounds of cost, as the secretariat for the Council costs only $70,000 out of a budget of $150m. It is for some other reason-an undisclosed reason-that this Federal Government, on Budget day last year, just a month or so after the end of the period of this annual report, sacked the Chairman and every member of the Council. They were not consulted and there was no discussion with them as to why they should be sacked. To my personal knowledge the members of the Council believe that they should still be in office and, strictly speaking, they should, because the ordinance requires it. An amending ordinance was put down a couple of days before Christmas without any public attention. Of course, it is still possible for the Senate to disallow that amending ordinance and so signal to the Government that there is a requirement for the Council to continue. If timing is a consideration, surely the time to consider any rearrangement or redefinition of the Council would be when the Australian Capital Territory gained self-government. That issue is pending, still awaiting resolution. If a Minister for Education is to come from those who are elected by the people of the Australian Capital Territory, let that be the time for making some rearrangement. I do not wish in my remarks to reflect upon the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer, Eric Willmot, or any other officers of the Authority who have important and valuable contributions to make to the school systems in Canberra. I only say that, in the light of this annual report, no case is made out for the Government sacking the eight members of the Council. Indeed, there is a profession in this annual report, as in earlier ones, that it is an important objective of the Authority to consult with the community. The best expression of that is the Council. Members of the Council see themselves as community representatives. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.42) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I had the pleasure of visiting the site of the National Museum of Australia on the edge of the water at Yarramundi on Monday of this week. I take this opportunity, firstly, to congratulate Mr Alex Dix, the Chairman of the Council of the National Museum of Australia, and Dr Don McMichael, the Director of the museum, on the work they have managed to do in developing this museum within the substantial financial constraints that have been imposed upon them. In August 1986 this Government announced a review of museums and collecting institutions. We have still not seen any progress with that review, and no further information has been made available in the 18 months since. In that 18 months, because of a row between the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories and the Department of Finance, all of the museums and collecting institutions of Australia have been suffering some sort of paralysis. They simply do not know what their future is; they do not know whether this Government has a commitment to them; they do not know whether they will be adequately funded; and valuable collections are being lost or destroyed, not being properly assembled and not being subject to proper curatorial management because of the failure of this Government to make a decision on the future of Australian museums. This Government must decide quickly on the future of museums in general. In my capacity as shadow Minister for the arts and environment, I say on behalf of the Opposition that we have a commitment to see that the National Museum of Australia is properly funded, properly developed and given recognition for the significant work which it is already doing, which it will continue to do and which will be important to future development in Australia. Since the report of the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections of 1975, the necessity to have a proper national museum and for it to be properly resourced and properly supported has not been in doubt. There has not been sufficient progress as far as this is concerned. The museum itself now has a much more realistic design and plan than that which it originally had, and makes more effective use of the 88 hectare site which it has available to it. It is perhaps an interesting reflection on the interests of Australians that the most popular single exhibit at the National Museum is Phar Lap's heart. For anybody who has actually seen Phar Lap's heart, it is indeed a revelation. The size and dimensions of that magnificent beast's heart are quite surprising and it is perhaps, therefore, only appropriate, given the sort of culture that we have in Australia, that it should be such a popular exhibit. Nevertheless, it is a drawcard to the museum and important as such. I note that this report has a great deal to say about the collection of Aboriginal artefacts. Indeed, 10,000 ethnographic and 100,000 archeological artefacts have been transferred from the old Institute of Anatomy, in a building which is now the home of the magnificent Film and Sound Archives, and from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, a body in which I know my colleague Senator Teague has a very great interest, to the National Museum, and are in the process of being properly looked after there. The disposal of Aboriginal skeletal remains such as those from the Oyster Cove community is dealt with in this report, and certainly very important principles are laid down about the way in which collecting institutions should go about the disposal of Aboriginal skeletal remains in a fashion which is compatible with the desires of the Aboriginal community to which those remains belong. This museum is doing an outstandingly good job. It is a tragedy that the Government will not give proper commitment to its future, will not give an undertaking not only to this museum but also to other significant national collecting institutions and will not proceed to expedite the work of the interdepartmental committee which, as I said, has been reviewing museums and collecting institutions since the announcement of the August 1986 Budget. I make the Opposition's position quite clear by indicating once again our support for the National Museum, and I call on the Government to do likewise. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(3.48) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In the last 12 months the Australian dairying industry has gone through a big phase of change. It was brought about mostly to sort out the problems of the eastern States dairy industry. We in Western Australia went through a lot of heartaches over that because we did our watershed 10 years ago and, in helping the rest of Australia to do its watershed, Western Australia suffered a certain amount in monetary terms. However, it is now 12 months since the end of the transition and it seems to be working well. The 1986-87 season was characterised by marked improvement in productivity on farm and at the factory gate. An increase in the use of supplementary feeds was the reason for this. The total value of production for the year in this very important industry was $1.232 billion. As I said, this was the first year of the new arrangements and they are certainly going well, judging from the total value of production. The depreciation of the Australian dollar has certainly helped this industry, together with increased exports and new markets overseas. The world dairy scene was again subjected to many changes in 1986-87. World milk production appears to be falling. There was reduced production in the European Economic Community (EEC), New Zealand and the United States of America. That, of course, augurs well for increased exports of Australian dairy produce. The international market for butter and butteroil remains depressed, with significant stocks in the EEC. However, Australia is not a great exporter of these products. There was an 8.6 per cent increase in Australian cheese exports in 1986-87. Japan seems to be the main importer of Australian diary products. It imported 38,000 tonnes of dairy produce from Australia in 1986-87. In the international arena, Australia continues its membership of the International Dairy Arrangement Management Committee-and so it should. This is a very important document, coming as it does at the end of the first 12 months of the revised Corporation. I commend it to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.51) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australia-China Council has been established for almost 10 years. It is a most successful body, with the aim of furthering good relations between Australia and China. Page 3 of the annual report sets out the objectives and priorities of the Australia-China Council. They are well worth reading by all honourable senators to see how the work of the Council complements the general thrust of our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, various free enterprise trading bodies, academic bodies and all of the other institutions in Australia that have contact with China in this very important bilateral relationship. I note that during last year a new Chairman-Gough Whitlam, a former Prime Minister-was appointed. I am sad to see the stepping down of Stephen FitzGerald, a former ambassador from Australia. He was once Chairman of the Council. I see that there was a very worthy body of members of the Australia-China Council during the last financial year which has continued into this year. I regret that I do not know of any senator or member of this Parliament who has attended, as an observer, a meeting of the Australia-China Council. Some 50 members of this Parliament are members of the Australia-China parliamentary group. It is the most active group in the Parliament. A number of us have visited China in recent years. In December I gave a summary speech based upon my own visits to China in 1985, 1986 and 1987 which I made with the assistance of parliamentary travel grants. I reflected upon the enormous progress that China has made in the last few years compared with what I saw during my first visit to China as a student in 1968. I draw the attention of the Council to the possibility of inviting one or two of us who have a pre-eminent interest in China to attend, as observers, a meeting of the Australia-China Council. The good work that it is doing is set out in the report. I am glad to see particular programs, including the language experience in China program which has taken relatively small numbers of young Australians to continue their tertiary studies in Chinese institutions. The Council has brought a number of Chinese delegations to this country. There has also been a program for young Australian scholars to go to China. Those young scholars engaged in intensive language training at Nankai University. Last November I visited that university in Tianjin and I know from first hand experience that it is one of the universities in China that have an economic research institute with a large section devoted to understanding this country. China has become our third most important export market. China is most important as a purchaser of our goods, lying behind only Japan and the United States in this regard. In 1986 China displaced New Zealand as a pre-eminent trading partner with Australia. I commend the work of the Council. I make only one reflection on the annual report: there are six photographs and, true to form, the former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, is in three of them-that is, half of them. He is included in the first two photographs. One shows him with Deng Xiaoping, whom he had the honour to meet in one of his two visits to China in the last 12 months, and the other photograph shows him hugging a panda bear. I thoroughly approve of his association with the pre-eminent leader of China, Deng Xiaoping, and with the panda bear, which has become a world symbol of China in a most warm and affectionate sense, but I remind the former Prime Minister that this is not a time for any kind of personality cult. I warmly commend the work of the Australia-China Council. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) 3.57)-I move: That the Senate, noting- (a) the warning contained in the latest quarterly report of the Steel Industry Authority that the Australian steel industry `may not see out the 20th century' unless the level of management/labour disputation is reduced markedly, work practices are brought into line with those prevailing in other countries and productivity improved significantly; (b) that `the Authority is deeply concerned that the Australian steel industry may at the end of the Steel Industry Plan be further behind its overseas competitors than it was at the inception of the plan unless some rapid improvements can be made in the industry's performance'; (c) the Authority's `grave concern that productivity in the Australian steel industry has not shown sustained improvement over the last two years' due mainly to industrial disputes and technical problems; that `the poor productivity performance of the Australian steel industry is in stark contrast to the performance of overseas steel producers' and that even the beleaguered United States steel industry had `a productivity level almost double that being achieved by BHP during September' despite BHP investing $1.3 billion on capital expenditure since the beginning of the steel plan; and (d) that while industrial disputation in the September quarter was the lowest since the steel plan began, following a June quarter that was the highest, `a number of issues remain unresolved', according to the Authority, which warns that `it is therefore too early to predict if this reduction in industrial disputation between management and unions can be sustained', calls on the Hawke Government to rescue its collapsing Steel Industry Plan by giving practical and effective support to the Authority's attempts to encourage `all parties to seek some common ground in the development of plant level agreements in an effort to secure the long-term future of the Australian steel industry'. The reality is that the steel industry in Port Kembla is now on strike. It has been for two days. Today the unions voted to continue that strike for an indeterminate period, indefinitely, despite all the dispute-settling procedures that have been introduced and despite the arrangements that Senator Button was telling us about in this place when trying to pretend late last year that there was basically no problem in the steel industry and that he was confident that the appalling situation that then existed would improve. The reality is that the steel industry is in chaos at the moment, not because of any crisis overseas that is having its impact on the Australian steel industry but because the steel industry plan has failed because the Government could not get, and, it can be argued, did not try sufficiently hard enough to get, any binding deal with the unions when it came to its tripartite agreement about a steel industry plan. Honourable senators will recall that the deal was that the industry would put in multimillions of dollars of investment in new capital equipment, which it did. Since the beginning of the steel plan it has contributed $1.3 billion on new plant and equipment. It has kept its part of the bargain. The Government committed the taxpayers of Australia to contributing a bounty to assist the steel industry over a difficult time and the taxpayers of Australia have met that commitment. More than $100m of taxpayers' money has gone as part of a commitment by this Government in a tripartite arrangement. The unions had one thing to contribute-industrial peace. We have had instead the most appalling record of industrial disruption which is now threatening not simply to damage this industry, but to kill it, to destroy the jobs not only of the unionists themselves but of all those Australians whose work depends on the existence of an Australian steel industry, to destroy the basis on which the Illawarra region, for example, depends for its survival. It is true that the unions have delivered something. They have delivered non-stop industrial unrest when their commitment, their undertaking, was, as part of the tripartite agreement involved in the steel plan, to provide industrial peace. This leaves us not only with the negative question relating to what has gone wrong. We know what has gone wrong. What we have to do now is find out what on earth can be done to fix it and to ask this Government why it has not done so. Of course, one could say along with Senator Button that as industrial unrest is the problem that is a problem relating directly to the New South Wales Government because the employees at Port Kembla are under the control of the industrial relations laws of the State of New South Wales. Senator Button was very quick to make that point when this matter was last raised with him-that it was all the problem of the New South Wales Government and we should be addressing our concerns to that Government, not the Federal Government. The fact that the Federal Government has entered into a deal was apparently beside the point to Senator Button. He was also eager to point out that the New South Wales Government had introduced the legislation that had caused the industrial unrest last year-it was continuous during the first half of last year-at Port Kembla when the days and the production lost through industrial unrest were at record levels. That was because the unions were objecting to the New South Wales State Government's workers compensation legislation. We have Senator Button as the authority to establish that on two grounds. The first is that the New South Wales Government passed laws the unions did not like and which the New South Wales Government apparently had not explained adequately to the unions. That is the first reason why the New South Wales Government can have the results of industrial unrest pointed directly at it. The second point relates to the fact that the New South Wales industrial relations system is in charge and not the Federal system. I would like to make a few points about that. It is interesting that in a State election campaign the Federal Labor Party, having clobbered the State Labor Party as being the responsible body for this chaos, should now be trying to re-write history. We have Mr Keating coming out in the Illawarra Mercury in Wollongong, with this most extraordinary statement: Treasurer Paul Keating yesterday praised the Unsworth Government's efforts in transforming Wollongong and Newcastle from industrial ruins to thriving cities. He went on: Wollongong and Newcastle were cities ready to close down after being ruined by the former Liberal administration and it was only the Wran and Unsworth Labor leaderships which turned the cities around. There are a few points I would like to make about that. In the first place the previous Liberal leadership in New South Wales ended in 1976. There have been 12 years of Labor chaos. Senator Patterson —Long, long years. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Far too long. Is Mr Keating saying that Mr Wran and Mr Unsworth are to be credited with or blamed for everything that has happened in the steel industry in the Illawarra region over those 12 years? There is no doubt from what Senator Button has said that, yes, the Wran and Unsworth governments are responsible for the industrial relations chaos because it was and is under their administration and, yes, it is true that the Unsworth Government is responsible for last year's plethora of industrial unrest because it was a protest not against the company or any of the things the company was doing: it was a direct protest-and a silly one-against the Unsworth Government's legislation. Senator Parer —Remember Wran's navy? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Parer says, `Remember Wran's navy?', when exports from the Port Kembla wharves were held up non-stop. Senator Parer —Months. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —For months, at enormous cost. There was something like $15,000 to $20,000 demurrage on the ships held up by non-stop industrial unrest which, in effect, destroyed Australia's credibility as an exporter for quite some time; in fact it is still damaged. That is what we are now going to face in this present strike. We will face a situation-we are already facing it-where Australia's credibility as an exporter is again being damaged at a time when it is absolutely vital for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) to have increasing export markets. It has now concentrated its production into a more limited range of steels, thereby requiring some imports to cover those areas that are not now manufactured in Australia so that BHP can then offset those import bills by exporting the steel it does make into world markets. I think it is worth pointing out just what has happened with the strike. As I said, today the unions have defied the order of the industrial court in New South Wales. They have defied that order to return to work and are continuing on strike. Senator Parer —What's new? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —What is new indeed. When we look at the record of the unions in Port Kembla it is a perpetual record of industrial disruption which appears to be aimed at destroying this industry. There appears to be no other coherent reason for the behaviour of the unions in this area. I said when we debated this last year that it is nonsensical to pretend that this is simply the result of some sort of problem with the management of BHP when we know that the great bulk of last year's disputation related directly to a dispute between the unions and the New South Wales Government. This latest one relates to one man-he is a $4m to $5m a day man. That is probably the market value of the steel that is not being sold because the raw iron that is being made is being dumped. BHP is expected to stand down 1,000 workers at its Port Kembla steelworks, according to a report in this morning's media. The report states that more than 400 employees have been told to go home until further notice and the rest will be told of their fate next week. From the period Monday to Wednesday, BHP dumped more than 20,000 tonnes of molten metal. The Port Kembla steelworks is Australia's biggest. It produces about two-thirds of Australia's steel. The intriguing thing is that this strike is taking place not only in defiance of the New South Wales Industrial Commission, not only in defiance of the recommendation from the union leadership, but also in defiance of the deal made between the Government, the unions and management under Senator Button's famous steel industry plan which was going to save the world. It was going to save the industry and save Wollongong. Senator Stone —We're further behind now in relative productivity internationally than when we started. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is exactly so. That is the point I made at the beginning of this speech, that we are in an even worse position in relation to the international steel industry than we were before Senator Button's magnificent plan was introduced. It has been a failure; he has been a failure. That failure is underlined by the destructive effect of the industrial relations chaos that is caused in that industry by the incompetence and/or meddling of the New South Wales Labor Government. Senator Stone —What does he do? He introduces a Bill for a footwear, textile and clothing development authority. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I shall refer to that matter in a minute. Having just established with awful clarity how this kind of deal, which depends on the decency and goodwill of the union movement, was doomed from the start, we now face the situation where the Labor Government will do the same sort of thing to another industry. It will not impose sanctions of any kind on that section of the tripartite deal-the unions-over which it is too gutless to impose any sort of control. Senator Parer —It's their master. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Parer says, once again the union movement demonstrates its role as the master of its political juniors, its political subservients, in this place. The reality is that this steel industry plan had no prospect of success while there were no sanctions against failure to meet obligations. We can ask the Government whether it really thought that the special relationship it had with the unions, which it talked about and which it trumpeted in the election campaign during which it continually misled the Australian people, would get the unions to abide by the terms of this agreement and that nothing else was needed. Senator Stone —Abiding by the terms of the agreement? They don't know the meaning of the term. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that to be so. The present situation-I think we should ask ourselves about this-is that the Government has committed large amounts of taxpayers' money, just as the company has committed its money, yet the other part of the deal is not being delivered. It seems to me that if ever a government gave consideration to going into this sort of deal-I will not say whether it is necessarily good or necessarily bad-with the Australian union movement, as evidenced by the south coast branch of the Federated Ironworkers Association (FIA), there would be a clear requirement, I believe, to enter into a contractual agreement, the breach of which would involve the imposition of penalties. A disastrous penalty has been imposed upon the company with its $1.3m worth of investment. A disastrous penalty has been imposed upon Australia's balance of payments and on Australia's unemployment bill as people lose their jobs because of this union intransigence; but because of this Government there is no capacity to require the imposition of some form of penalty for the deliberate breach of orders to return to work legally established in accordance with a plan under which the Government has extracted from the unions an obligation that they clearly are not prepared to abide by. I must say that I am very concerned at this kind of unwillingness by the union movement to meet what was a very reasonable requirement of Commissioner McMahon in the Industrial Commission. It strikes me as being deliberately aimed at some agenda that I simply cannot understand, unless it is an agenda involving the destruction of the steel industry, the destruction of jobs and the destruction of the economy in the Illawarra region. It is not as though the unions in that area have not been warned; they have been warned for years. The Minister himself has warned them. Last year Mr Keating went to Port Kembla and strongly criticised-with words and not deeds, of course-the unions which were destroying the steel industry at that time; but all to no avail. But what a reasonable proposition it was that Commissioner McMahon recommended. He said that the men should return to work and seek a negotiated settlement. They are disgusting words, are they not? Fancy suggesting that they seek a negotiated settlement! The unions responded appropriately. They said, `We will not tolerate that kind of foul language'. The only word they know is `strike'. A negotiated settlement, indeed! That would be a change of face at Port Kembla. Senator Parer —And killing the jobs of their mates. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Killing the jobs of their mates, as Senator Parer interjects. The members decided not to do that. Commissioner McMahon then ordered the workers-- Senator Stone —With respect, Senator, they didn't do anything of the kind. A few trade unions bosses decided that. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I regret to say that there was a meeting of the strikers. Senator Stone —What proportion of them was there? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —According to the newspaper report: The 250 members met this morning to consider the recommendation . . . That is 250 out of several thousand. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! I suggest to Senator Stone that Senator Baume can make his speech without any assistance. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Out of many thousands of workers, 250 turned up, as Senator Stone quite rightly says. The newspaper articles continues: But after discussion unanimously reaffirmed their previous position and have decided to stay out indefinitely. Senator Stone —Was it the usual thing: `Shall we stay out and if any scabs are here, get them against the wall?'. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The usual sort of industrial blackmail that takes place in Port Kembla was, I presume, exercised. The decent unionists, who are the great majority in Port Kembla, are forced into this situation and frankly, out of fear in many instances, will not turn up to such meetings and will not vote openly and publicly against such a strike call. They are having their jobs destroyed by the incredible behaviour of this small group of 250 members who turned up and who have their own agenda. When I say they have their own agenda, I mean it. There is a group in Wollongong, the Socialist Workers Party, to which many of these people belong, including some union organisers. That group has as its objective the destruction of the way of life that we have in Australia; and it is certainly determined to destroy `capitalism', whether or not that involves destroying jobs in the region. I have to say that there are far too many decent and honourable unionists in Port Kembla whose lives are now being disrupted and whose prospects of employment are being demolished by the agenda of a group of people who belong to a party which I believe has dishonourable objectives-whose objectives could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as being in the best interests of Australians but may well be in the best interests of a few politically oriented extreme leftists who, let us face it, are destroying this industry. We know that they are destroying this industry because the plan states that the industry will not survive and may not see out the twentieth century unless the level of labour disputation is reduced markedly, work practices are brought into line with those prevailing in other countries, and productivity is improved significantly. Honourable senators will be interested to know that the quarterly report of the Steel Industry Authority, which came out a couple of Sundays ago and which contained so many grave warnings, was issued under the cover of a Press release from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. That Press release made no mention whatever of any of those grave warnings in the report. It did not mention the fact that productivity in Australia had worsened in relation to other countries and that we would be even further behind the rest of the world than at the beginning of the steel industry plan. There was not one word about that. Senator Stone —I am sure that it was an honest oversight. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I agree that it was an oversight. I cannot give it that adjectival description. Senator Stone —We've had a lot of honest mistakes recently, too. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —This may be another of those `honest' mistakes which, as Senator Stone rightly points out, seem to have been happening non-stop. All we got in that covering Press release was a comment limited to the report's disclosure of a fall in industrial disputation in the September quarter. It is true that there was a fall in industrial disputation in that quarter to the lowest level since the steel industry plan. It followed the worst ever industrial record in the previous three months since the steel industry plan. One has to put them together to see what the average is. Now once again we are on the industrial disputation road at a cost of multimillions of dollars and at a risk to this industry and its future. The Press release totally ignored the grave warnings in the report. In recent months Senator Button has continually sought to criticise those of us who for 18 months or so have been warning non-stop that the steel industry plan was falling apart and that the Government had to do something positive and effective to get the unions to play their part in this deal. It is clear from what Senator Button said in his criticisms of those of us who have made these warnings that he has no interest, no concern and no effective involvement in saving this industry. It has all got too hard. It is all the problem of the New South Wales Government or of the New South Wales Industrial Commission, or as a result of disputes relating to the New South Wales Government's workers compensation arrangements. None of it is Senator Button's problem. He keeps mouthing great hopes that things will improve. `I am very confident', he says, `that the new dispute settling agreements will resolve the problem'. I have news for Senator Button, wherever he is-and he is not present for this debate, a debate that is central to Australia's economic future in an area for which he is responsible. It is worth pointing out to Senator Button that he has failed because in the plan he did not provide any sanctions against deliberate, bloody-minded, destructive union activity aimed at destroying this industry. Senator Button has said, `The Government does take a role through industrial relations policies of one kind or another'. If this is the role that he sees he has properly played, all I can say is that his industrial relations policies of one kind or another have not been good enough. We now face a series of continual disasters. The approach adopted by Senator Button in the past when either Senator Lewis or I have raised this matter has been condescending and is now seen to be clearly ridiculous. The industry-and these are not my words but those of the Steel Industry Authority-faces destruction. It may not last 12 years because that is when this century ends. I stress that the Minister in putting out his Press release covering a report that warns that the industry may not last 12 years did not even address himself to that warning. What kind of Minister is it who pretends that everything will be all right on the night? Last time we questioned Senator Button about this matter he said, `The steel industry plan is alive'. He thought that it was a silly question of mine to ask him whether he believed that the company's regrettable decision which it had to make not to proceed with major structural improvements at Port Kembla No. 4 blast furnace because of continual labour disruption meant that his steel industry plan had failed. I now ask a question of Senator Button about the latest round of industrial unrest, about which apparently he can do nothing, about which he has said nothing, about which this Government has no desire to do anything because it is all the fault of New South Wales anyway. My question is: What will this Government do to save the steel industry? Does it have any desire to save the industry? Will it with any willingness give us any evidence to take strong and positive steps to save the steel industry and the jobs of tens of thousands of Australians that are now at risk? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.27) —Senator Michael Baume has proposed a motion and has expressed concern that Senator Button is not in the chamber. All Senator Button will have to do is to go back to the Hansard record of 3 November when Senator Michael Baume then, as he has today, demonstrated his paranoia and his lack of understanding of industrial relations issues. On that occasion he moved a motion drawing attention to: The need for the Government to bring to an end union sabotage of the steel industry plan. He has given us the same one-sided rehash of the old arguments he used then, egged on by Senator Stone. The shareholders of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) are about to have an important meeting. If Senator Michael Baume wanted to give BHP shareholders a message about how they might improve the results of their company, it would be that BHP's management should start to try to change the attitudes to industrial relations it has had for a long time. I think that there has been some improvement in some of the industrial relations activity since the last debate on this matter in this place in November last year but we have to have a much more balanced analysis than Senator Michael Baume has given us. We cannot rely on just the abuse of trade unions. Interjections by Senator Parer about traitors are not the answer to the problem. I hope to deal with the various parts of the motion and show that there is an answer to what Senator Baume has proposed. When dealing with complex problems it is necessary to look at their history, and to ensure that they are carefully examined when we are trying to give mature consideration and not just relying on prejudice. At the very beginning the motion refers to: the warning contained in the latest quarterly report of the Steel Industry Authority that the Australian steel industry `may not see out the 20th century' unless the level of management/labour disputation is reduced markedly, work practices are brought into line with those prevailing in other countries and productivity improved significantly . . . When we consider that the Steel Industry Authority report that Senator Baume quoted relates to the three months period to 30 September 1987, the warnings contained in the report must be seen in the appropriate timeframe. The industry had just emerged from a difficult first half of 1987, with industrial disputation reaching high levels for a number of reasons which we went through on 3 November. A significant part of those losses of production was caused by what are described as technical errors. In part they could be said to be management errors because of the lack of skill at one level, one could say, in introducing new equipment in the refurbishing plan at the steelworks. A significant factor was that contribution by technical errors. In the September quarter there was a signi- ficant fall in the number of man-hours lost due to industrial disputes, and that trend has continued into 1988 with, of course, the exception of the dispute this week, with which I will deal very thoroughly. When honourable senators examine the totality of the position they will see that it is not as Senator Baume has said. What I am saying gives the lie to what Senator Baume referred to as `non-stop industrial unrest'. BHP and the unions have in fact moved towards industrial peace to the extent that they have had national negotiations which resulted in a national negotiating agreement, and the industrial problems of early last year should be seen as an aberration. I acknowledge what Senator Baume was saying regarding the superannuation dispute; it was an extraneous matter but one that did occur. These things do occur, and that has happened, but there has been an improvement. I would just like to refer to some of the improvements that have occurred that have the possibility to bring far greater improvement in the steelworks particularly. I am referring at the moment to Port Kembla. BHP and the unions have gone into discussions on arrangements covering consultation procedures, work practices, productivity improvements, the extent and time of job shedding, and other industrial relations issues, with the aim of establishing an industrial agreement that will provide the basis for industrial harmony after this year. Of course, Senator Baume has not had one good word for that positive work that is taking place because, as usual, he is simply concentrating on the negative. The Steel Industry Authority is actively promoting this industrial agreement and has been very successful in generating significant progress on this front. The other thing that Senator Baume has not mentioned a word about is the significant second-tier agreements in the steel industry; 62 separate agreements have been reached in the slab and plate products division alone. Hundreds of meetings have taken place-not a dispute-but Senator Baume, who lives off industrial disputes, does not mention that. He cannot see the positive negotiations that took place, which meant in most cases significant concessions being given on the trade union side-these terrible people that Senator Baume has just abused. These people did, with management, I think indicate in those second tier negotiations the possibility of improving industrial relations. Of course, these agreements should provide the basis for future plant level consultation and arrangements. What I am concerned about is that I do not think BHP management has been able to move far enough. I will deal with that. I have said it before, and I have based what I said on the experience of BHP management over many years and the fact that it has had one of the worst backgrounds, or worst reputations, in the total industry in Australia. Paragraph (b) of Senator Baume's proposed motion says: `That the Authority is deeply concerned that the Australian steel industry may at the end of the Steel Industry Plan be further behind its overseas competitors than it was at the inception of the plan unless some rapid improvements can be made in the industry's performance'. The steel industry plan warned in September that rapid improvements in the industry's performance would be needed if it was to make gains relative to its overseas competitors by the end of the plan. That is the end of this year. Since the inception of the plan BHP has become one of the world's lowest cost steel producers. As a result of its low cost raw materials, of the massive $1.3 billion that I acknowledge has been made available in the investment program, of improvements in work practices and of the resultant productivity gains which have been achieved, the Steel Industry Authority has rightly pointed out the need to build on those gains. Now, I am putting all the factors. I am being fair about it. Something that Senator Baume pathologically cannot do is be fair about all the factors that have meant that BHP costs are low. I acknowledge, of course, the change in the value of the Australian dollar. But the steel industry, like the manufacturing sector generally, must continue to improve its competitiveness, and that is what this Government, and particularly Senator Button, have inspired Australian industry about and have constantly emphasised by particular plans. I see also that Senator Stone denigrates the textile and clothing industry. It is significant that that is another industry employing thousands of people who do not speak English as a first language, and Senator Stone-- Senator Stone —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I claim to have been misrepresented and ask the honourable senator to withdraw that totally false allegation in which he claimed that I was denigrating the footwear, clothing and textile industries. I am quite prepared to criticise many aspects of the industry, but I did not say that. What I did was to criticise this Government for bringing into this place today a Bill to set up a Footwear, Clothing and Textile Development Authority. The honourable senator should get the facts right. Senator Robert Ray —Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Stone jumped to his feet on a point of order and then claimed to have been misrepresented, which are two different things under the Standing Orders. I really think you should instruct him in future to go to his point of order if he claims to have been misrepresented. When the senator has finished speaking, Senator Stone can correct what he likes. It is the tradition to grant leave where necessary, and I understand that if one claims to have been misrepresented one does not even have to seek leave. It does interrupt the flow of debate unfairly. I am certain that on some occasions Senator Stone will be on his feet and will not want his flow of debate interrupted. It is a good tactic, but it is not within the Standing Orders. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —The Standing Orders require the citing of a particular relevant standing order in taking a point of order. That was not the case, Senator Stone. You are standing, and there is no point of order. There is an ability for you to make a statement in the way that is usual in the Senate at the conclusion of Senator Childs's speech or at the conclusion of the debate. Senator CHILDS —I do not want to upset Senator Stone, and I certainly do not want to waste my time on him. If anything has offended him, I will withdraw it. What I was trying to talk about was the importance of the human capital that exists in this country. I was saying that in the steel industry it is common to employ many people whose language is not English, people who left school before the age of 15-the people predominant in the work force involved in the industrial dispute that Senator Baume was referring to. It is significant that the textile and clothing industry is one of the key industries for people with those backgrounds. When I criticise BHP I do so because I believe it has not given enough consideration to its human capital and to developing that capital. Too often it is using its might, its power, to crush people. I was saying that it was necessary to look at those things in order to have a balanced judgment. I turn now to paragraph (c) of the motion. That is the reference to the industrial disputes and technical problems. I will not read it all because Senator Stone has taken some of my time, but it is there for honourable senators to see. While productivity levels in the Australian steel industry need to improve beyond what has already been achieved under the steel plan, the industry's position is significantly better than the bald productivity figures suggest. Published productivity figures measure output of raw steel per man, but take no account of saleable steel. BHP's investment in improved processes has increased the yield of saleable steel without increasing raw steel output. This is in accord with the point that Senator Button has emphasised so often: the importance of value added to Australian manufacturing. The Authority also takes no account of the degree of downstream processing which is value added to the raw steel. The product mix varies widely between competing steel companies, with BHP extensively engaged in value added processes. Comparisons with overseas producers are invidious as the statistical bases vary enormously. The common practice of excluding maintenance and other support staff, for example, can increase the figures for productivity levels at a stroke. I expect that unfortunately, the productivity figures for more recent periods will be down as a result of the unavoidable and technical problems that I have referred to; not because of industrial disputes. I turn now to some of the problems, the problems that Senator Baume does not allude to. The people of Wollongong are facing a major problem in the steel industry at Port Kembla under a plan known as the mechanical maintenance plan. A multi-skilling program of immense proportions is taking place. The pressure is on for completely restructured awards and skills but in the process of this restructuring several thousand people will be laid off. Many others feel that this restructuring will lead to the simple deskilling of their work. Morale of the work force at Port Kembla is very low. Such factors should be considered if the Senate wants to have a sober analysis of the problem of the steel industry. Many workers feel frightened by the kinds of changes they are expected to make. As I said, these are people who are migrants, with poor English and inferior education and who have left school at a very early age. Many of the workers believe that these problems have been brought about by management's desire to move to a system in which there is a heavy reliance on contract labour. That is a further apprehension among people in the industry. This Government, more than any other, has recognised the need for a flexible, highly skilled work force. Whilst we want to press for that we also understand that it can be brought about only with the co-operation of both management and labour, by building mutual confidence. Change must be brought about in a humane fashion and this will not be achieved unless the work force co-operates. Unfortunately, BHP has a very bad history and BHP management is notorious for being inflexible. The world is not moving in the direction of such an attitude and progressive companies now give greater attention to the training of their employees. This must be understood as the background to the outlandish statements that have been made by Senator Baume. I hope that the Government can become more involved in this area, using its good offices. I realise the background of this plan but sometimes the Government, in working out how best it can co-operate, is able to facilitate the solving of any difficulties people in a factory or group of factories are having. I refer to the industrial dispute that Senator Baume has been raging about. What we are talking about here-and I do not have a perfect knowledge of it but I have spoken with an official of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia-is a ladle that carries something like 200 tonnes of metal in it. A protective shield was bent or broken. I am not quite sure which but the area that was bent or broken was treated with Kowool, a fibreglass-type substance. The ladle was activated five or 10 minutes afterwards and the gate would not work. It was clear that the equipment was badly damaged. The workers made a decision that as the company had not adequately corrected the defect-they thought it was dangerous that the company had not fixed the problem-they would not handle the equipment for 48 hours. I assume that was to make sure that the company would effectively make the repairs. The company retaliated and brought the equipment into operation virtually immediately. In a time honoured tradition, because the people had made a decision, the first person who was asked to operate that equipment refused and that person was sacked, which is a classic way in which industrial disputes occur. Senator Baume has made the implication that this person who was accidentally there-he happened to be a shop steward of the union-was a sinister person. The way I took what he said was that it was a one-man dispute. Senator Baume's description is a gross falsification of the incident I have described to honourable senators. It is a rough description showing that the workers had a real concern about safety. In a time honoured tradition the person who was asked to do it, the workers having made a decision, refused to handle the work. We have seen Senator Stone helping Senator Baume by talking about trade union bosses. Senator Stone —He did not require any assistance from me. Senator CHILDS —Yours was like a falsetto voice egging him on with your New Right philosophy of blaming union bosses for everything. What happened, of course, was a classic example. We see in the report in the Sydney Daily Telegraph today that the officials of this union, because they could see the advantage of referring the matter to the State Industrial Commission, recommended to the workers that they return to work so the dispute could be settled. The officials of the ironworkers union in Port Kembla recommended a return to work. But we do not yet have slaves in this country. For right or wrong reasons, the workers made the opposite decision. This happens all the time. Even senators are sometimes wrong. People disagree with their leaders. In this case, I believe the people were probably wrong because any union official would know that returning to work would allow the matter to be dealt with. But we are talking about workers who are worried. I have described the fear they have about rapid change being considered in their place of work. We are talking about people who come from just about every country one can nominate. They have a different native tongue and difficulties communicating and understanding the rather complex industrial structures that we have. These are the reasons why we have an industrial dispute. It is not a dispute organised on high by officials of the union. It is a complete lie and a complete fallacy for the Opposition to say that this is some sinister plot by trade union officials. Anybody sombre and concerned about getting a result should remember the workers at the Ford motor plant at Broadmeadows where workers under great pressure-the pressure of a speeded up production line-finally revolted against their union officials and revolted against everybody because they found the position intolerable. There is an element present in this dispute of people being very worried about safety and therefore not doing what those people who might be wiser and more knowledgeable of how the industrial system can be properly used would do. Nevertheless, they are acting in a democratic way and making decisions that they are entitled to make. If there were a better climate, if there were a 20-year history of good industrial relations, or if it involved another group of workers, perhaps they would trust management. Unfortunately, in this particular case we do not have that trust. I mention those things because I think it is important to get the other side. We all know that we get a very one-sided version of events from Senator Baume. I would like to deal now with paragraph (d) of the motion. I will not go into its full detail. I have answered the question relating to industrial disputation, but I remind honourable senators that the 62 agreements negotiated in the second tier arrangements were an indication of an improvement in relationships. They indicate great flexibility as far as the work force is concerned. But, as with all industrial relations issues, one just does not have smooth sailing. So whilst there has been an improvement in the march of industrial relations, unfortunately we still have not been able to overcome these problems. A proper analysis of the motion we have before us shows that although its wording is more balanced than Senator Baume's previous effort, his calling on the Hawke Government to rescue the collapsing steel industry is a typical overstatement. The situation has improved. We have an industrial dispute that has to be looked at and analysed separately. Every industrial dispute has a life of its own and must be examined carefully. We should not allow the prejudice of coalition senators to enter into what is a complex situation. Above all, this Government, through its plans in a whole range of industries, has attempted to show its goodwill and its interest in the revitalisation of manufacturing industry, helping the parties in industry to come together. Unfortunately, the Opposition is pathologically incapable of trying to bring people together. Senator Baume, who has attacked the Unsworth Government, is a classic representative of the coalition parties. If they were to take power in New South Wales we could be absolutely certain that we would have complete disputation in the steel industry from day one of a Greiner government. Not only would we have Senator Baume and his protege, Mr Greiner, in New South Wales but also we would have Senator Stone's representative in New South Wales as the other 40 per cent of a coalition government. Anyone listening to this broadcast must realise that the problems of the steel industry are complex and difficult. There is no earthly chance of a coalition government in New South Wales ever assisting in their resolution. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.52) —I support Senator Michael Baume's motion and point out that it calls on the Hawke Government to rescue its collapsing steel industry plan by giving practical and effective support to the Steel Industry Authority's attempts to encourage `all parties to seek some common ground in the development of plant level agreements in an effort to secure the long term future of the Australian steel industry'. I totally reject and refute the last statements made by Senator Childs about the coalition parties not having any idea about bringing people together to solve disputes. We totally support proposals which would bring people together to resolve disputes. That is the only way it can be done. Senator Childs is quite wrong when he makes that suggestion. I also refute any suggestion that this is a bash on the union movement. It is also not a bash on Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP). It is a bash on this Government and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, for lack of action. It is also, in part, a bash on the Unsworth Government for the role that it has played in the problems at Port Kembla. Let me go back to the question of the unionists. I do not have to criticise the unionists and their leaders in relation to this dispute. Senator Childs has already done that for me. Senator Childs has acknowledged that the workers in this dispute are wrong. That is the way he put it. He then tried to explain what excuses they might have for making the decision they have made. But he acknowledged that they are wrong. So, as I said, there is no need for me to be critical of the unionists and the employees down there. I understand that only 250 employees were present at yesterday's meeting at which they decided to continue the dispute, in other words, to stay out on strike. There are 12,000 employees at Port Kembla. Those people are putting at risk the entire industry. They are putting at risk their town, Wollongong, and the district. They are putting at risk opportunities and ideas which others might have for investment in the area because of the militant approach they have towards any issue which upsets them. I go back to my criticism of the Unsworth Government. The massive industrial disputation which occurred in the area last year was brought about, not because of any dispute between the union and BHP but because of a dispute which the union had with the Unsworth Government over workers compensation matters. The union took out its spite against the Unsworth Government by striking, to the detriment of the company, the steel industry and its colleagues. I say to those unionists that they will get their opportunity next Saturday week to take out their spite against the Unsworth Government. The solution to their problem is to throw out the Unsworth Government and put in Nick Greiner. In August 1983, this Government, a very short time after it came to office-a few months-announced its steel industry plan. Senator Button moved in and explained how the Australian Labor Party would solve the problems in the steel industry. The stated long term objectives of the plan were the creation of a long term, viable steel industry with job security for employees and production at internationally competitive prices. There were four parties to the plan and each made specific commitments. The Commonwealth Government, on behalf of the people of Australia-I remind the Senate that it is not the Commonwealth Government on its own behalf or even on behalf of the members of the House of Representatives and senators; it is the Commonwealth Government on behalf of the people of Australia-promised bounty assistance on four products to a ceiling of $71.6m per annum, with a guaranteed share of the market of 80 per cent. It also promised a fast track anti-dumping system, an import warning system, quotas on reduced tariff imports from developing countries and the creation of the Steel Industry Authority. In the plan BHP undertook to continue the operation of the Port Kembla, Newcastle and Whyalla steel works, to provide job security for the period of the plan-provided that the plan was successful-to adopt an $800m investment plan over the first four years, which has been very substantially exceeded, and to keep prices in line with the consumer price index. The unions' promises were effected by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) on behalf of the unions. The ACTU undertook to ensure that demands for wage increases would be in accordance with the prices and incomes accord and kept within community standards. It promised to re-establish an initial productivity level of 205 tonnes per employee per annum. Then the various State governments agreed to minimise the rises in State charges to the steel industry and to provide an improved industrial climate. One would have thought, with those four parties agreeing to those things, that this was going to be a successful plan. The problem was that the plan was flawed from the outset. It made no provision to commit employees, shop stewards and local branches of the various unions to the undertakings given on their behalf by their peak bodies. The ACTU had made commitments on behalf of the unions but ultimately it was unable to deliver or to accept responsibility. Even the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, overall, was unable to deliver because it was unable to control the branches down on the shop floor. The shop stewards and the local branches were not prepared to accept commitments given on their behalf by their peak bodies. There were no sanctions either on any of the parties for failure to fulfil their responsibilities. BHP has fulfilled its responsibilities, what it said it would do, so the sanctions there did not really matter. BHP is a company in which the decisions can be made at the top and delivered. So when it committed itself to this plan it was able to deliver. But the union movement is not constructed like a company. The power in the union movement rises from the floor; it does not come down from above. So the commitments made by the ACTU were unable to be delivered because there was no desire on the shop floor to deliver them and, in any event, there were no sanctions in the agreement. Therefore I say that the plan was flawed from the outset. I add that the initial productivity target of 205 tonnes per employee per annum was too low and failed to recognise that the production per employee per annum involved constant catch-up. The rate of catch-up needed to be well beyond the trends in national productivity to become and remain internationally competitive. I now turn to the New South Wales State Labor Government. It failed to involve the union movement in New South Wales in the introduction of work-care compensation, and this became a major issue in industrial disputation. The unions, as I have mentioned, reacted not against the State Government, which they could do next Saturday week, but against the company. As I said, if the unionists in this area wish to show their feelings towards the State Labor Government, they may do so next Saturday week by voting out the Unsworth Government, and that action will not place their jobs in jeopardy. Let me also add unequivocally, so there is no confusion, that BHP's man-management techniques and communication with the work force were certainly not as good as they might have been, particularly over work force shedding and work practice changes. The steel plan makes provision for bounties to increase when production goes down, and this acts as a cushion against industrial unrest and low productivity. It is only recently that BHP has looked to becoming export oriented, and some criticism can be levelled at the management for its tardiness in seeking export markets. The Federal Government has failed to protect its investment in the plan and correct the flaws which allow the unions to abrogate their undertakings. As I have indicated, there is fault on both sides as far as BHP and the unions are concerned, but there is certainly also fault with both the New South Wales State Government and the Federal Government, which is not protecting the interests of the people of Australia. The Western world's crude steel output jumped by 17.5 per cent in 1987. Japan, the biggest steelmaker, boosted output by 16.6 per cent in 1987. South Korea posted a 24 per cent increase, and Brazil an 8.3 per cent rise. Compare that with BHP's output of 285 tonnes per employee per annum for the September 1987 quarter. Its very best effort was in the quarter ending July 1985 with 304 tonnes per employee per annum. Compare that with the China Steel Corporation of Taiwan, which has moved from 428 tonnes per employee per annum in 1985 to 493 tonnes per employee per annum in 1986. Even the beleaguered US Steel was producing 579 tonnes per employee per annum in September 1987, a productivity level almost double that being achieved by BHP. On page 2 of the latest Steel Industry Authority quarterly report for September 1987 are these two paragraphs: The Authority is deeply concerned that the Australian steel industry may at the end of the Steel Industry Plan be further behind its overseas competitors than it was at the inception of the Plan unless some rapid improvements can be made in the industry's performance. The raw material cost advantage enjoyed by BHP cannot sustain the industry indefinitely in the face of major advances being achieved by overseas steel producers. The Authority is of the view that unless the level of management-labour disputation is reduced markedly, work practices are brought into line with those prevailing in other countries and productivity improved significantly the Australian steel industry may not see out the twentieth century. On the other hand, the Authority believes that if these issues can be satisfactorily resolved, significant opportunities exist in overseas steel markets for BHP to expand capacity and to increase exports. There must be a clear commitment through productivity to the development of these overseas markets because continuity of supply of consistent tonnage is essential to achieve this end. Despite that warning the unions at Port Kembla have again demonstrated their lack of understanding of how industrial action places their jobs in jeopardy. Their latest foolishness is frankly almost unbelievable. As Senator Childs has acknowledged, if they would only go back to work, perhaps the dispute could be resolved in accordance with established practices. An article in the Illawarra Mercury of the 24th of this month states: Port Kembla slab cast workers twice rejected a return to work call yesterday and voted to stay out on strike, threatening further stand-downs at the plant. BHP Steel Slab and Plate Products divisional general manager Jerry Ellis said the dispute, which has already led to Basic Oxygen Steelmaking workers being sent home, was ``very damaging and placing jobs at risk.'' Another part of the same newspaper refers to the case of Mr Alan Carr, `the slab caster delegate who was dismissed for refusing to work a ladle of molten steel because he claimed it was unsafe'. The decision to refuse to return to work `went against the recommendation of the State Industrial Commission's deputy president justice McMahon and the Federated Ironworkers branch secretary Nando Lelli, who supported the return to work'. Another meeting was held at 10 o'clock this morning, and I understand that the decision was to remain out on strike. It was very pleasing to read the following in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 23rd of this month: BHP is planning a radical departure from its steel strategy of the past decade by boosting raw steel output and embarking on a major export drive. Over the next three years, the Big Australian plans to spend $360 million on plant at Whyalla and Sydney that will enable it to boost exports by up to 50 per cent. The additional equipment, a $200 million slab caster at Whyalla and Sydney's $160 million mini steel mill (which is already under construction), will enable BHP to export surplus output from its steelworks at New- castle and Westernport in Victoria. Companies making commitments such as this spend very substantial sums of money. It is now up to the unions, to the State Government and to this Federal Government to demonstrate support for the plan by honouring their undertakings in order to make the industry internationally competitive. There is no reason why anyone should expect taxpayers to featherbed the steel industry. Certainly, there is no justification for renewal of this plan when neither the State Government nor the unions seem prepared to play ball. To provide more Federal taxpayers' money would be pouring more money down the drain unless the participants come to their senses. We would like to know what the Federal Government and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, are going to do about this. Does the Minister wash his hands of it and say that he has done all that he can do and will now remain silent and allow the parties in some way or other to resolve this dispute, when it has become quite clear that the union activities at Port Kembla are such that some other approach must be taken? The Opposition calls on the Hawke Government to rescue its collapsing steel industry plan. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.13) —I will be brief in my comments. I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to support the motion moved by Senator Michael Baume. It is appropriate that Senator Baume is the mover of this motion. Not only is he a senator for New South Wales but also he is based in Wollongong and, quite clearly, has a very real interest in this issue. It is very close to his heart. This is a revisit of the urgency motion of 3 November 1987. A couple of things have changed since the last debate on this matter. On that occasion we opposed the urgency motion because we regarded it as being relatively negative. On this occasion we support the motion. We see this motion as being essentially positive in its terms and in its suggestions. It proposes that the Senate call upon the Hawke Government to rescue a collapsing steel industry which is vital to the Australian economy and to give practical and effective support to the Steel Industry Authority, and calls upon all parties to seek common ground in the development of plant level agreements in an effort to secure the long term future of the Australian steel industry. Quite obviously, we could not oppose such a motion. It is a positive motion and is directed in the right direction, and therefore it has our support. We did not support the previous motion because we saw it essentially as union bashing. However, as I said, a couple of things have changed. Since then there has been a critical time lapse of several months. We now find that the Authority responsible for this industry is itself calling upon the Government to take positive action; is itself calling upon unions for co-operation; and is itself citing the fact that we have moved through a critical time, that we are at a critical stage and that at this point it is absolutely vital that significant steps are taken to save this industry. We share the sentiment of the Opposition that it is quite appropriate and responsible to focus in the next few weeks upon New South Wales issues. It is quite responsible in a period leading up to a State election to focus upon industrial disputation and the impotence of the Unsworth Government to resolve it in New South Wales. We see that as being both appropriate and responsible, and we support the coalition in this process. We also share Senator Baume's amazement at the timing of the disputes that are apparent in the steel division of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) at Port Kembla. It certainly detracts from the credibility of Premier Unsworth's Government. It suggests a lack of influence over unions in New South Wales and highlights the fact that Mr Unsworth and his Government have been unable to arrest the level of disputation at Port Kembla over the 18-month period of his premiership. In short, it cites a gross inadequacy of the present New South Wales Government. We are amazed that Mr Unsworth has been unable to keep the unions at heel during the critical few weeks prior to a State election. This stands in contrast with the fact that, over the last few decades in this country, the actions of union movements have usually been fairly predictable in the period immediately prior to elections. The unions tend to go quiet to create a false sense of security, and it is therefore all the more surprising that on this occasion they seem not to be rendering even that level of support to a State government. Senator Michael Baume —George Petersen is standing as an independent. That is what it is all about. Senator McLEAN —It may indeed have something to do with the fact that Mr Petersen is standing as a local independent. The last time we discussed this issue there were certainly warning bells that the industry needed to get its act together. Our contribution to the debate at that time was to emphasise the tripartite nature of the solutions. Certainly, the State Government has been clearly impotent in this context. I and the Australian Democrats value the contribution of Senator Childs in this debate. He certainly put us straight on the facts and the factors which are contributing to disputation at Port Kembla. It is important that we see this issue in factual terms and not purely in emotional terms. He drew our attention to the factors which have contributed to the low morale of the work force at BHP, Port Kembla. This whole disputation and the difficulties associated with BHP at Port Kembla certainly ring out grave warnings and hold up a stern challenge to an incoming coalition government. The coalition has referred to the inadequacies and castigated the present State Government. I would not be at all surprised if it is in government three weeks from now and refers to the grave challenge for the incoming Government. One would hope that that hints at the promise of a solution. If it is so cogently and insightfully aware of the nature of the problem, hopefully that suggests that it would also be able to offer a solution to it. We challenge the coalition, therefore, after 19 March, to come to grips with this problem very quickly. There should be a change in the tripartite equation which, for the last 18 months, has been balanced towards a Labor government in the government corner and in the union corner of the triangle. There may be a shift in the equation towards a coalition government in the management corner of the triangle. That might provide a breakthrough and help to resolve the problems of the Port Kembla local economy and, indeed, a serious problem for the national economy. We accept the fact that there is a genuine area of difficulty of industrial disputation, to which Senator Childs has rightfully drawn our attention. We accept the fact that it centres on the problem of finding a satisfactory legal solution for real problems of occupational health and safety. We accept that these are real problems in this industry. In fact, we join others in throwing down the challenge to an incoming coalition government to come to grips with these problems. We interpret the fact that it is prepared to cite the significance of these problems today as an indication that it is prepared to come to grips with these problems in the weeks, months and years ahead. We therefore support this motion. We see it as essentially constructive and positive. It throws down the challenge to an incoming coalition government. We like its promise of future success in resolving these difficulties. We hope that Senator Childs's observation that the coalition is `pathologically incapable of bringing people together' is wrong and that the incoming coalition Government is capable of getting the parties together. We hope that it is advising us that it is accepting the challenge and that a solution to the problem is around the corner. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(5.23) —The quarterly report of the Steel Industry Authority is yet another indictment which highlights the incompetence of the Hawke Labor Government-this time in regard to industry policy. That is why I strongly support the motion moved by Senator Michael Baume which, on the basis of shortcomings in the operation of the steel industry plan highlighted in the Authority's report, called on the Hawke Government to rescue its collapsing steel industry plan by giving practical and effective support to the Authority's attempts to encourage all parties to seek some common ground in the development of plant level agreements in an effort to secure the long term future of the Australian steel industry. Three commitments were required to allow the steel industry to work-commitments by the company, the public and the unions. The company was to invest $800m, the public purse was to provide up to $71.6m a year in the form of bounties and the unions were to provide industrial peace. More specifically, the unions agreed that wage costs would be contained within prevailing community standards consistent with the prices and incomes accord; as an initial target to re-establish a productivity level of 250 tonnes per employee per annum, with future increases to be above the trend rate in national productivity; and to adhere strictly to established grievance settlement procedures. The first two commitments by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) and by the public have been honoured. In fact, BHP increased its commitment to $1.4 billion. But today in Wollongong, a strike over a single individual is costing $1m a day and the unions have defied a return to work order to continue the stoppage. If that is the Government's idea of industrial harmony, union co-operation and consensus, I would like to hear its definition of harmful disruption. I would also be interested to hear its definition of the words `fair' and `summary'-particularly in the context of Press releases giving `fair summaries' of statutory reports. I refer, for example, to the one concerning the release of the quarterly report of the Steel Industry Authority by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). It is yet another classic example of government by Press release. Dated Sunday, 14 February, it purports to summarise the Steel Industry Authority's report for the quarter. In self-congratulatory overtones the Minister announced, firstly, an improved performance for the quarter and then recorded his pleasure at reduced amounts of time lost through industrial disputes. He went on to express hopes that consultation and co-operation between BHP and the unions would lead to a bright future. There was not one word of the loud warning bells sounded by the Authority in its report. They, apparently, were not worth mentioning in the media release. We all know that the reason for the temporary reduction in industrial disputation in the September quarter was the sweetheart deal between the unions and the Unsworth Labor Government to ensure industrial peace in the months leading up to the New South Wales State election. But the current strike at BHP shows that the sweetheart deal is disengaging, because it is now clear that the Unsworth Government is heading for defeat. The unions no longer see any benefit from their quiet acquiescence before the election and are going for broke. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is engaged in his own version of the Norman conquests, as Greg Norman's partner in the ESP Pro-Am Golf Tournament. I am told that on the very first tee he hooked his shot into a group of spectators and was heard to yell, `Two!'. Greg Norman asked him what that meant. The Prime Minister replied that it was a fore after he had finished taxing it. Senator Robert Ray —I saw the first hole on television. He didn't hook into the crowd. He duffed a shot on the second hole. Senator CHAPMAN —It was on the second hole, was it, Minister? As if to emphasise problems in the industry, BHP is running television advertisements congratulating small business on using its products, while at the same time the Government is throwing more small businesses on the scrapheap. So the alarm in the Steel Industry Authority report is proving to be right on the button, but sadly ignored by Senator Button, the responsible Minister. It is little wonder that BHP has had enough and wants to pull out of the plan in the hope that it can cut its losses a little before the plan expires naturally, in agony, at the end of the year. The only successful steel plan that this Government has under way at the moment is to steal people's superannuation. The Government, in this case, in the electorates and in industry, is proving as deaf as a post to even the loudest alarm. The key to any industrial plan's success is productivity, which, in the case of the steel industry, fell dramatically from the end of 1985. In fact, it plunged over a 12-month period from 280 tonnes per man year to 240 tonnes per man year. This created, by the end of last year, a backlog of unfilled orders which have been carried forward as a result of production losses earlier in the year. Then there was some recovery. But amongst other unheard warnings raised in the Authority's annual report-that is, unheard by the Minister, according to his Press release-the increase in domestic despatches during the last quarter was, and I quote: . . . largely achieved at the expense of export deliveries, which fell by 18 per cent. This practice of exporting only the surplus above the Australian requirement, while having some local benefit, does little for the development of long-term export markets. In fact, BHP's exports for the first nine months of last year were down 34 per cent on 1985 figures. What-except briefly in the September quarter-was causing most concern to the Authority? Industrial disputes. Co-operation and consultation, the report adds, are desperately needed within the steel industry, in which productivity has failed to show any sustained improvement over the past two years. The following point is made: the poor productivity performance of the Australian steel industry is in stark contrast to the performance of overseas steel producers. Productivity levels in the United States were almost double that being achieved by BHP. Here is a warning really worth omitting from any self-congratulatory government handout: The Authority is deeply concerned that the Australian steel industry may at the end of the steel industry plan, be further behind its overseas competitors than it was at the inception of the plan, unless some rapid improvements can be made in the industry's performance. Unless the level of management-labour disputation is reduced markedly, work practices are brought into line with those prevailing in other countries and productivity improved significantly, the Australian steel industry may not see out the twentieth century. It seems that while the industry may not see out the twentieth century the unions are yet to enter the twentieth century with their outdated nineteenth century attitudes to industrial relations. When we consider that today's export market is only 13 per cent of total steel production, compared with 30 per cent in the 1970s, the importance of the domestic market and stability in the workplace assume greater significance. In fact, industrial problems so exacerbated commissioning and operational problems that BHP was forced to import materials in the September quarter in order to meet domestic demand. However, of those previously mentioned points, none were important enough to be included in the Minister's Press release summary. Let us go back a little further to the Steel Industry Authority's annual report for 1986-87. Page 2 of that report states: Preliminary net profit for the BHP Steel International Group for the year ended 31 May 1987 fell almost $54 million to $200 million . . . This reduction in net profit was the direct result of a combination of operational difficulties leading to higher costs, an increase in industrial disputation, depressed prices for coal exports and an increase in interest charges associated with BHP and the Steel International Group's large and ambitious capital investment program. When BHP's new plant is fully operational the Australian steel industry will have modern facilities which, in general, will be internationally competitive. With the additional advantage of access to relatively low cost and high quality locally available raw materials, the Australian steel industry has the potential to become the world's lowest cost steel producer and potentially a competitive exporter. However, the realisation of this potential lies almost entirely within the hands of the industry itself. It will require the effective and enlightened management of both capital and labour resources to place the industry's future development on a sound footing. A failure in the performance of either capital or labour-honourable senators should note this well-would not only represent a lost opportunity for the Australian steel industry but also, given the extremely competitive world steel environment, could jeopardise its existence. While recognising the significance of capital investment to the long term viability of the domestic steel industry, it is the management of the industry's labour resources that is of greatest immediate concern to the Steel Industry Authority. A very clear, earlier warning bell was sounded when the annual report came out in September last year, five months ahead of the Minister's Press release. But there is more. The Authority says that the present level of industrial disputation within the steel industry is a clear indication that some of the parties at least have lost sight of their common goals. Moreover, it perhaps exposes a fundamental flaw in the lines of communication between management and unions and within unions. In a reference to Port Kembla, this is what the annual report had to say five months ago: The fact that the level of disputation can largely be attributed to issues outside the direct control of the steel industry, namely changes to the New South Wales workers' compensation legislation, does not reduce the seriousness of recent events. In fact, it raises grave doubts as to the commitment by some of the parties to the security and development of the steel industry in general. These were loud and clear alarms heard by some several months ago, but apparently not by the Government, as evidenced by the transparency of the Minister's wallpaper Press release. Unfortunately for the Government, the Press paid no attention to the release and read the report for themselves. But unfortunately for Australia, what was only last year being presented as a possible giant step forward for the steel industry has been allowed to deteriorate rapidly and thoroughly despite the severity of numerous warnings that the death of the industry can be foreseen within 12 years. After that short period there will not be any industry issue to strike over because there will not be any industry left. Let us also remember that it is not only the Steel Industry Authority which is sounding the alarm bells. The shortcomings in union attitudes have also been highlighted in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. It is a bipartisan and unanimous report which stated: The Committee must conclude that the unions are no longer meeting their commitments. The unions have not adhered to the agreed dispute settling procedures and industrial disputation has reached pre-plan levels at Port Kembla. The effectiveness of the Steel Industry Authority in this area has been negligible. Much progress must also still be made by unions regarding productivity, further increases being imperative if Australia is to attain long term international competitiveness. Therefore it is clear that the Government's policy with regard to the steel industry is in a state of utter failure. As a result of that and as a result, particularly, of the militant attitude of trade unions which have no concern for this industry, the industry is in a state of grave doubt about its future and it has been said that it may not survive the end of this century. It is for that reason that I strongly support Senator Michael Baume's motion today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill seeks to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973 which is the legislative basis for the provision of student assistance under Austudy and for the grant of post-graduate awards. The proposed measures are designed to facilitate the prevention of fraud and the recovery of overpayments under student assistance schemes. The Attorney-General recently announced the outcome of the Review of Systems for Dealing with Fraud on the Commonwealth. The main thrust of the Review's findings was that agencies affected by fraud should have the principal responsibility for its prevention and detection. It is intended to progressively implement measures to prevent, detect and recover moneys which have been wrongfully paid under programs administered by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. As a first step towards making student assistance schemes less vulnerable and to assist in recovering overpayments, the Government is proposing that the Student Assistance Act be amended to bring it into line with the Social Security Act in matters relating to the gathering of information, and the recovery and write-off and waiver of overpayments in relation to the schemes. It is reasonable and proper that the powers provided to the various Commonwealth authorities for the administration of income support schemes should be similar, to the extent that this is feasible. At present the Department of Employment, Education and Training obtains information from educational institutions and Government authorities to verify particulars provided by students in their applications. The proposed new section 31D will give legislative support for such arrangements and will facilitate the acquisition of information to ensure that the income tests are applied correctly and that the funds to support students, which are provided at considerable cost to the community, are directed to those for whom they are intended. Recovery will be strengthened by the introduction of measures similar to those already provided in the Social Security Act, to recover overpayments from money owing to a debtor. The proposed new section 31a will allow overpayments of student assistance, social security or veterans benefits to be offset against an entitlement under the Student Assistance Act. The Bill will also amend the social security and veterans' legislation to extend their recovery provisions in a similar manner. The Bill provides for the maximum penalties under the Student Assistance Act to be increased. At present the maximum penalty for offences under the student assistance legislation is $100. This has little deterrent value for people who might consider attempting to obtain money fraudulently. The maximum penalties as outlined in the new section 31h are to be increased to $2,000 and/or 12 months' imprisonment for individuals who make false or misleading statements or otherwise seek to deceive in order to obtain benefits unlawfully. There is a proposed maximum penalty of $10,000 for corporations which refuse to co-operate in arrangements to verify entitlements and to recover payments which should not have been made. The proposed penalties are in line with those prescribed under the Social Security Act. The waiver and write off powers to be provided in the new section 31c are similar to those applying under the Social Security Act. At present, these powers in relation to student assistance schemes are exercised by the Minister for Finance under the Audit Act. It is considered more appropriate that they be exercised by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training as part of the overall responsibility for the administration of student assistance programs. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Clauses 19 and 20-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 21 (Appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction). Amendment (by Senator Tate) agreed to: Page 8, clause 21, line 18, insert ``, on the application of a party or of its own motion,'' after ``may''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22 (Procedure). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.38) —The Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment to clause 22 which refers to section 97 of the principal Act. Amendment No. 4 which has been circulated by me is the amendment to which I refer and which, as I have said, I have already made mention of in my second reading stage speech. This section of the Family Law Act deals with the procedure in the Family Court of Australia. The key provision that we are referring to-subsection (3)-states: In proceedings under this Act, the court shall proceed without undue formality and shall endeavour to ensure that the proceedings are not protracted. Subsection (4), which the amendment is specifically directed to, states: Neither the Judge hearing proceedings under this Act nor counsel shall robe. Those provisions formed a very important part of the decision to establish the Family Court as what was known as a new kind of helping court. That is the phrase that was used to describe the new court which was being created under the Family Law Act. To those of us who were very much involved in those decisions and in formulating the legislation, to which I have already referred in my speech during the second reading debate, it seemed to be appropriate that such a court should not appear to be the same as other courts. I know that people in magistrates courts do not wear the ordinary regalia. Certainly counsel appearing in magistrates courts do not wear a gown or anything of that sort. I understand that in some States magistrates wear gowns, but certainly that is a new phenomenon to me. When I practised law in the magistrates courts, neither the magistrates nor counsel wore any sort of robe. Senator Tate —That is a good argument. Senator DURACK —The Minister will see why I have changed my mind in a minute. I understand that even magistrates now wear robes. The idea was that the Family Court should not appear to be the same as other superior courts in the land. As I said, the Family Court was established as a superior court. These provisions were put in the Act to differentiate that Court in an obvious way from other superior courts. In the other superior courts of the land-the Supreme Courts and Districts Courts of the States and the Federal Court of Australia-the traditional garb of wigs and gowns is worn at all times. But it was thought to be appropriate that this differentiation be made clear in this new type of helping court, with its emphasis on conciliation, reconciliation, mediation, and the provision of assistance by such experts as court counsellors, welfare workers and so on being a very prominent part of the workings of the Court. The history of this Court over the past 12 years has caused many people, including me, to change their views. We have not changed our views about such essentials as judges having particular qualifications and an interest in and sympathy for the jurisdiction, all the resources available at present continuing to be available to the Court, emphasis being placed on conciliation, and so on. We have not changed our views about all those things, which have worked successfully and which I discussed at length in my speech during the second reading debate. I certainly agree with these words in subsection (3) of section 97 of the Family Law Act: . . . the court shall proceed without undue formality and shall endeavour to ensure that the proceedings are not protracted. That is a pretty good injunction to direct at any court. Perhaps all of our Acts that deal with courts should contain a similar provision. However, many people, including myself and members of the Opposition, now think that the prohibition on the wearing of wigs and gowns in the Family Court is not beneficial. In fact, it is thought to have been one of the problems with the Court, in that people do not see it as a superior court of the land because it appears to be so different from the other superior courts of the land. That has led to a lack of respect for the Court. Even though the Court is a special sort of court, it should be seen to be part of the mainstream of the superior judicial administration in Australia. There is another argument that is used in favour of a return to judges in the Family Court being robed. I suppose it is part and parcel of the former argument, but it is more specifically directed to the need for judges to retain their anonymity. In that way there will not be the same focus on the person or the judge as an individual when he or she is pronouncing decisions that are unfavourable to certain parties. In other words, the parties see the judge as another person removing their child from their custody or taking away their property. When I was Attorney-General a litigant telephoned me, following a decision being handed down in the Family Court, to complain that he had had seven farms taken away from him that week. So when property is reorganised it creates great bitterness. I did not like to say to him, `You must be pretty well off. You probably had at least 14, if not 21, farms'. That emphasises the strong bitterness that is felt by parties who are the subject of decisions in the Family Court. There is no doubt that such bitterness is felt by persons who are sentenced to long gaol terms in the criminal jurisdiction, and so on. In that jurisdiction judges are even more impersonalised; they wear even more formal robes in the criminal jurisdiction than in other jurisdictions. It provides a greater detachment of the person from the processes of the court. In other words, the judge is not seen to be a person but a remote judicial figure. As it has turned out, only a small percentage of cases that come before the Family Court reach the stage of having a judicial decision handed down. The vast majority of them-more than 90 per cent-are settled. When the judges in the Family Court are brought into a matter and required to hand down a decision, the Family Court is acting like any other court. Therefore, the judges of that Court should be provided with the anonymity and the sense of authority that wearing robes gives them. Robing is not confined to the legal profession. Many groups in the community wear uniforms of one sort of another. That is highly applauded by the community. There is a debate about when it is appropriate to wear wigs and who should appropriately do so. I know that there is a difference of opinion about that matter in this chamber. We on this side believe that the President should be robed, but honourable senators on the other side do not hold that view. It is natural enough that that sort of debate should take place. I think the desirability of judges of superior courts robing is pretty widely accepted. Indeed, that could be said of counsel who appear before such courts so that they are part of the formality or the solemnity of the process. Of course, academics often wear gowns, particularly on ceremonial occasions. An important part of maintaining discipline in the services is the wearing of uniforms. For all those reasons, we think that, as part and parcel of the reconstruction of the Family Court and the restoration of its authority in the community as part of the superior court system, which it undoubtedly is, it would be helpful if it were seen to be the same as other courts and if judges were able to robe. The subsection of the Act that the Opposition seeks to delete simply prevents such judges from wearing robes. The acceptance of this amendment will not mean that we are directing them to robe. The judges will decide that, just as judges in other jurisdictions decide whether they will robe and whether counsel will robe. It will be left to the judges to decide, but I understand that a clear majority of Family Court judges wish to go back to robing and to require robing by counsel appearing before them. Therefore, it is likely that they would take up the option if we were to remove the provision preventing such a practice. My personal view is that it is time that the superior courts in this land abandoned the wearing of wigs. I think that appropriate robing can be achieved without the wearing of wigs. There is a lot of debate in the legal profession as to whether the wearing of wigs should be retained or abandoned, but at this stage the wearing of wigs is part and parcel of the robing process. If the amendment is passed and if the Family Court judges decide to robe, they will wear wigs. That is appropriate so long as the rest of the superior court judges in Australia continue to wear wigs as part of their robe. The purpose of this amendment is that the Family Court should be seen to be exactly the same as other superior courts. Therefore, I move: Page 8, clause 22, at the end of the clause, add: ``; and (c) by omitting subsection (4).''. The amendment will permit the judges of the Family Court if they desire to do so, as I feel they will, to robe and be seen to be part of the mainstream of the judicial system, as they should be. We are doing a number of things in this legislation, as is the Government, to try to achieve a greater acceptance of the Family Court and to emphasise its status as a superior court. The main object of the Bill is to give it additional jurisdiction, which will add to its authority and probably attract more people interested in serving on it. We have taken the view in this chamber that the salaries of Family Court judges should be commensurate with those of judges in the Federal Court and other superior courts in Australia, and have backed the establishment of further officials, such as the judicial registrar, a new minor judicial figure, who will take some of the workload off the judges to enable them to concentrate on their greater task. This is all part of the reconstruction to improve the quality of justice from the Family Court and the authority of its judges. The Opposition believes that a very important part of that process is that the judges should be able to robe and be seen as ordinary judges, part of the mainstream judicial system. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.53) —I support Senator Durack's comments on the subject of robing. The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) probably would agree that, over the period during which the Family Court has done away with robing, there have been considerable problems with the security of Family Court judges. People who have come before Family Court judges have, I believe and obviously many of the judges agree, considered the people passing down decisions on the personal lives of parties in the court and their children-because the judges are not robed-not as members of the legal profession but more as ordinary human beings who have jurisdiction over them. There is no doubt that the bitterness is then passed on directly not to a failing of the law as the parties see injustice done to them from their point of view, but to a failing of that individual. I believe that the security of the judges has been diminished considerably rather than enhanced over this time. It has not resulted in what was believed would happen, or what the Whitlam Government thought it would achieve-namely, to bring the Court more into the range of the people. It was considered that it should be a more chummy affair, if you like. However, it has not created that feeling, but has caused tremendous problems. Can the Minister give any idea of the added costs of security in respect of Family Court judges over the period in which this Court has been set up? I am aware that it is a considerable amount. If the disrobing had been successful, I believe that that amount would not have grown to the extent it has. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the need for security and on any additional bitterness that has resulted to the individual passing down judgment compared with what happened in the past. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.56) —I support the remarks that have been made; it is significant that it not be thought that there is only one voice speaking in support of the proposition that judges of the Family Court ought to be robed. It is now very clear that it was a mistake in the first place to abolish the concept of robing for the Family Court. I have held that view for a very long time. The concept of this Court as a more friendly, relaxed place just does not work. I believe that the way in which it has been presented in that way has been harmful and totally ignores the fact that many people before the Family Court are very emotionally involved and upset about what is occurring. For many people who attend the Court I realise that such a process would not make the slightest difference, and the more relaxed atmosphere may be of benefit. But for many other people who go to the Court I feel that it puts the judge in a totally different light to find him sitting there looking as though he might be one's neighbour and not an officer of the Court making an order that will affect one as an individual. I think this factor has been very important. The most significant part of the problem that arises in the Family Court is the concept of the no-fault divorce. There is no such thing, and in the minds of most people who go before the Court there is definitely no such thing. Mostly it is a case of one party being dragged into court because the other party is seen to have abandoned the marriage. One cannot just cover that up and pretend that it is a relaxed, civilised environment where nobody has any feelings at all. Try telling a man or woman that the other party who has left was entitled to walk out at a whim and will receive a fair share of the property, even though that party broke up the marriage and children are also involved. One would be kidding oneself if one thought that these things could be done easily. When orders are finally made by somebody who is being paid as a judge to do so and to make determinations, I think that one of the important factors in that environment is at least to see that the person looks like a judge and is perceived to be somebody who is playing that role in the proceedings. For many couples who are able to cope with these matters differently it probably does not matter in the slightest, but in many instances it would be one step towards making the system work more smoothly if the judges looked like judges and the court looked like a place where a decision was being made that people should respect. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(6.00) —I have listened with interest to this discussion about wigging and dewigging and robing and disrobing of judges, but I imagine that I am the first speaker in this debate who has had experience of having appeared before a judge in a Family Court. When I stood in front of him I did not feel in any way threatened because that particular individual was not wearing a wig and was not wearing a gown. The individual, of course, was dressed. It could have been a different situation. I think there is a certain degree of bunkum attached to the question of robing and wigging of individuals. I just look at you, Mr Chairman, flanked by two clerks. I must say that you are a much more friendly, approachable individual than perhaps your two colleagues at the table are. I draw that analogy, but in no way is it a reflection on the two clerks. There are perhaps times when wigs and gowns are needed, but it is a question for the individual. Judges wearing wigs can be very threatening to the individuals appearing before them. In many cases the marriage separation is done very amicably and there should be no additional threat imposed on that separation. It is a fact of life in this twentieth century that marriages do break up. I know it is hard for some in the community to accept, but it does happen. When it happens those individuals ought to be given every help and encouragement to make the most of the rest of their lives for themselves and the children of the marriage, and robing and wigging could be very intrusive. There is another element, which is not perhaps the major part of the argument, and that is that the question of wigging also brings with it a considerable expense. I do not say that it should be tossed out merely on the question of money. Nonetheless, it is an expense and a matter to which we should give serious consideration at this time. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.02) —I would say that Senator McKiernan has virtually proved the case that I was just making, that there are a number of cases exactly in the category he described himself as being in where proceedings were quite civilised without the overtones of trauma and drama and upset that is the case in so many instances. That, of course, is perfectly valid. Senator McKiernan raised the question of cost. I would suggest that in fact the cost of wigs and robes is absolutely nothing compared with the loss of life and the extra security that has to be provided for Family Court judges. I think one needs to distinguish very clearly between the sort of case that Senator McKiernan is talking about and the very many other cases that are quite different from that where a different environment may well help people to understand what is happening and why a decision is made and needs to be abided by. The option of wearing wigs and gowns and their being worn in the appropriate case I think is proved conclusively by the argument Senator McKiernan has presented. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(6.03) —Senator McKiernan's point about the cost of wigging is, nevertheless, valid. We are talking here about wigs. The robing includes a wig, so a decision by a judge of the Family Court to wear robes will be a decision to wear a wig. Perhaps a financial impact statement should have been attached to the amendment. I think a wig costs about $950. Senator Walters —That is if judges choose to do it. Senator TATE —If they choose to do it; that is right. But somebody will have to pay for the wig, and I am fairly confident that the Government will be paying for their wigs. But I put that to one side. Senator Walters —What does it cost for the security? Senator TATE —I am coming to that. Without being able to give the precise figures that would be available in an Estimates committee, I am advised that it costs something like $2.5m a year for the security arrangements surrounding Family Court judges. That is a very important consideration, of course, but I am not yet convinced of the link, put as strongly as it has been by some senators, between the extra danger in which Family Court judges may find themselves and the fact that at present they do not wear robes and wigs. I have not seen sufficiently strong evidence to make out that that link is as clear as would be suggested by saying that if one puts a robe and a wig on a Family Court judge then the antagonism that might be directed towards the person making the decision would be not directed to the person so much but to some abstract notion of the law and, therefore, he or she would not be imperilled by some disappointed person who had appeared before him or her taking revenge. I just do not see quite as clearly as some others do that link between greater danger, the not wearing of a wig; less danger, the wearing of a wig. I concede that there is some argument for the fact that wigs and gowns do in a visual way, and therefore psychologically, depersonalise the person making the particular decision. Senator Walters —That is the problem. Senator TATE —I think that is a well-known fact of theatre. That is why priests wear vestments, but it has not yet been demonstrated to my satisfaction, or to the Government's satisfaction, that there is such a clear link that we should do away with the concept behind the original decision, which was to promote an openness and informality such as might be engendered by not wearing robes and wigs. Indeed, the Family Law Council, I think in its report only a couple of years ago, came to the same conclusion, though it noted that many judges within the Family Court wanted that option. Apparently most practitioners who returned the questionnaire circulated by the Family Law Council thought they should not. So there is a division of opinion out there, and the Government is not persuaded to support the amendment. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.07) —I am astonished by the arguments put forward by the Minister. I would have thought that he would be looking for any possible assistance to prevent anything like the violence that has been displayed against Family Court judges from recurring. I cannot imagine what extra evidence the Government needs to indicate to it that there is something wrong-that there is something happening with the Family Court that does not happen in the other courts where people may well be just as emotionally involved on occasions but there has not been the same degree of violence exhibited against other judges as has occurred in the Family Court. The Minister may be quite right in suggesting that this is of no consequence. Senator Tate —I didn't say that. I said the evidence was unclear. Be fair. Senator REID —Oh, there is some evidence. I would have thought that having a judge dead and the wife of a judge dead would be sufficient evidence to try to do something that might help in alleviating the problem that now exists. The Minister is talking about more than $2m for security. This really is a very small cost to perhaps move in a direction which would be of some help, and I put it on the basis of security and respect for the court and acquiring some status for it. There is the additional argument that Senator Durack mentioned earlier, of course, of the Court appearing to have the sort of status it ought to have compared with other courts. How many more judges does the Government want murdered before it will try to do something that will move in that direction? Senator Tate —That is very unfair. Senator REID —Yes, I agree; but the Minister's argument is: the fact that a few are dead is not sufficient evidence to try to do something towards alleviating the problem that exists in this Court. I am challenging the Minister on that and saying that I think he is taking less than a proper attitude to the Court when he says that. I cannot imagine what else he wants to make him feel that he ought at least try to do something to obviate the problems that have existed. As I said, this does not apply in every case, but there are some cases where it is very clear that because of the emotional heat that is generated the Government needs to do something to try to make the system work better than it does now. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.09) —The Minister said that he was not satisfied that the evidence did indeed create the problems that senators on this side of the chamber have put to him. He will never be able to prove in black and white that that is the sole factor that has created the problem of the violence that has been shown to the Family Court judges. I am not saying that that is black and white proof. I am saying that I believe it is one of the factors. The Minister has admitted that he believes there is a very good argument to say that that could be one of the factors. All we are asking the Government to do is to try it over a period of years and if the violence or the attempted violence diminishes then the Government will know it is on the right track. At least it will have done something. I liken it to the gun laws position. There is no way in the wide world that we can say that the gun laws that have been suggested by various States are going to work. I presume that what the Government is saying in regard to New South Wales is that the laws are an attempt to stop gun related violence. It is an attempt. We do not know whether it will work but at least it is attempting to do something. The Minister is saying in this case, `It is a legitimate argument but I am not 100 per cent convinced. Therefore, I will do nothing'. All we are asking on this side of the chamber is that the Government make an attempt and try something that will perhaps save the life of another Family Court judge or the lives of his family. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.11) —I was not surprised to hear from the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) that, although the soundings that were made by the Government into the views of the judges and practitioners revealed that the majority of judges probably-I think the Minister would agree-wish to return to the wearing of robes, the practitioners whose views were sought disagreed. I do not know what is the authority for that, to what extent they were polled, but all I can say is that the Law Council of Australia favours the Family Court returning to robing and has written to I think all of us in support of this amendment. It certainly did not surprise me that a number of practitioners said that they do not want to have to robe. I can understand that. I find it a nuisance having to robe. When one is running late for court after preparing the case and other things, it is a nuisance to have to robe before one can say anything in the court. I suppose many practitioners in the Family Court are solicitors who have not much court experience or who have experience only in magistrates courts where they do not have to robe. Therefore, having to robe in the Family Court would be a new experience for many of them. I share some of the irritation of the legal practitioners about what is being imposed on them. It may be a reason that drove me into the Senate; I can speak whenever I like without having to be robed whereas in my previous profession I had to go through this nuisance. However, things have improved a bit. For instance, I am told that one now does not have to keep a separate shirt and to put on a winged collar because one can now wear a jabot. One does not even have to take off one's tie, I understand, to comply with the robing rules. Perhaps the practitioners who are not used to the jurisdiction have not caught up and do not know that there have been improvements. My suggestion that wigs be dispensed with would make it even more convenient. I do not know why Senator Tate was so worried about the cost of providing the robes or the wigs. The Government would not have to pay the cost of all the counsel getting wigs; it would have to pay for only the judges. Even on Senator Tate's extreme estimate of the cost of a wig, the total would not amount to more than $50,000, compared with the figure Senator Walters gave for security. Senator Walters —Over $2m. Senator DURACK —Security involves $2m. I do not want to add to the very sound arguments that have been advanced by my colleagues Senator Walters and Senator Reid but, on security, it is not just a question of a judge being murdered and the wife of a judge being murdered. In another incident a judge was seriously wounded. I think he has probably suffered permanent injuries, very sadly. There were other bombings. Parramatta Court was very seriously damaged. Another judge's home was totally destroyed. Fortunately no-one was injured in that incident, but the whole house was destroyed. Numerous threats have been made and it is alleged that contracts have been let on the lives of judges. I have mentioned some of the very difficult litigants in this Court in my other speech. I have heard them make these sorts of threats. Whether they are made in the heat of the moment or are serious we do not know. There is overwhelming evidence of this and the Government has accepted this in the security that it is providing for these courts. As Senator Reid said, this serious problem does not occur in the rest of the legal system. It has been directed at the Family Court since it was established in 1976, only in the last 12 years. Yet supreme courts had been exercising this jurisdiction for decades without the sorts of threats and violence that have been directed at the Family Court. It is an extraordinary phenomenon. It took up a lot of my time when I was Attorney-General and I discussed it with many people who I thought might be expert in it. Nobody can really understand it. People have views on it but there is a widespread view that, because the judge in the Family Court is seen in a very personal way and not depersonalised as in other courts, he appears as just an ordinary human being like the parties. He is sitting there and pronouncing decisions that can be very damaging and frightening for the parties. Perhaps my colleague Senator Patterson can shed some light on this as she is a psychologist, but I have not asked her. Nobody knows what is the cause but in view of the very serious situation which has developed there is certainly enough evidence for us to try to do something about it. A chance to depersonalise the judge to reduce the threats and violence towards him may be effective so it is worth trying, but that is only one of my arguments. I know it is not accepted by many people as a sufficient or even a good argument but the other issue is very important and I am inclined to emphasise it. That is the need to have the Family Court brought back into and to be seen to be part of the superior courts of this country. The provisions of the Family Law Act and the great efforts made when the Family Court was set up distanced the Court from the rest of the judicial system. What we are debating in this Bill is a proposal by the Government, the object of which is to bring the Family Court back into the judicial system and give it wider jurisdiction. Its object is to give Family Court judges more attractive, interesting work to do to such an extent that it will be more attractive to distinguished members of the legal profession to serve in the Family Court. The Government has the support of the Opposition and the Democrats in order that it may achieve its basic purpose. If the Family Court is once more to become part of the judicial system-and we do not need to debate again how in the long run it might do that; it is what we are all seeking to achieve and this Bill is a first step in that direction-it ought to appear to the community, to the people who appear before it, to those who work in it, to the litigants and to everybody to be clearly part of the judicial system. As I said earlier, in my speech during the second reading debate, members of the legal profession have an unfortunate view of the Family Court. They feel that the Family Court, a court established as a superior court of record by this Parliament under the Family Law Act, is not a proper court in some ways. Members of the legal profession and other judges in private conversations have made it clear that they look down in some way on the Family Court. That is a deplorable situation. It is wrong, for a start. It is deplorable that we in this Parliament should fail to do something which might change that perception of such an important institution as the Family Court. For all those reasons I have moved this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 34-by leave-taken together. Amendments (by Senator Tate)-by leave-proposed: (13) Page 9, clause 24, line 11, insert ``, the Deputy Chief Judge, a Judge Administrator'' after ``Chief Judge''. (14) Page 10, clause 27, line 40, insert ``, the Deputy Chief Judge, a Judge Administrator'' after ``Chief Judge''. (15) Page 12, clause 30, line 29, insert ``, the Deputy Chief Judge, a Judge Administrator'' after ``Chief Judge''. (16) Page 14, clause 33, line 19, insert ``, the Deputy Chief Judge, a Judge Administrator'' after ``Chief Judge''. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.24) —I ask the Minister: Does the Bill say anywhere that part IV of the Trade Practices Act cannot be dealt with by the Family Court? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(6.25) —The Bill is drawn in a way which confines the trade practices jurisdiction which might be conferred to divisions 1 and 1a of part V. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.25) —We had some discussion about this matter at the very beginning of the committee stage. The Minister pointed out to me the same thing, that the Bill specifically refers to the transfer of proceedings in regard to the Trade Practices Act only under part V, not under part IV. That is true. It specifically does not do that. The principles of pendent jurisdiction established by the High Court in relation to matters of Federal jurisdiction where there are certain State jurisdictions which give rise to cause of action under State law or common law as well as the Federal law can be picked up in proceedings. It is well known what jurisdiction the Federal Court exercises. I do not want to give a lecture on it. I am sure that the Minister knows all about it. It has been pointed out to me by lawyers with more skill and experience in all these jurisdictions-trade practices or whatever we are talking about-that it is not just a matter of transferring these jurisdictions to the Family Court. Other jurisdictions could be brought in, depending upon the facts of a particular case. Although that does not affect the Opposition's view and as we have strongly supported the principle of cross-vesting-indeed, we had a lot to do with the development of that proposal when in government-and although the Bill does not specifically mention it, in some cases there could be jurisdiction under part IV of the Act. I would like the Minister to deal with this matter. Senator Walters has asked a specific question in relation to it. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(6.27) —Mr Chairman, I beg the indulgence of the Committee. I wish to make a short statement before we rise. Having heard Senator Durack, I think we might report progress. Obviously there will be no more voting tonight. Progress reported. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement concerning an answer I gave at Question Time. Leave granted. Senator TATE —Today in Question Time I was asked a series of questions by Senator Newman about the National Crime Authority (NCA). One of these questions concerned part of an answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the House of Representatives earlier this week. I told the Senate that I had not seen the portion of the Hansard record to which Senator Newman referred and therefore could not comment on her allegation. I have now seen the Prime Minister's answer and can categorically state that the Prime Minister did not comment on an NCA operation. The Prime Minister in his answer made no suggestion that an investigation was under way. He was informing the Parliament merely that the NCA was reviewing material already in its possession to prepare draft answers for the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to questions on the House of Representatives Notice Paper. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! It being almost 6.30 p.m., I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.30) —The matter that I have to raise in the adjournment debate undoubtedly will seem to many honourable senators not a matter of great national moment, but it illustrates an interesting question in terms of the relationship between a particular statutory authority and this Parliament. I refer to the appalling behaviour of Australia Post in regard to the question of the recognition of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) conference which is to take place in Australia later this year. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as you, among others, Mr Acting Deputy President, would know, is a very important association. It brings together representatives of the Commonwealth parliaments, and it brings together a group of nations which have a common interest in the principle of parliamentary government and parliamentary democracy and who have a commitment to making parliament and democracy work. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference will be the first function to take place in the new Parliament House. As such it is in itself a significant function. Since 1961 the countries which have hosted the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences have issued postage stamps in order to mark that undertaking. I have here a complete collection of the postage stamps which have been issued from those countries to mark the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences. Going through them since 1961 they have been: Great Britain, Nigeria, Malaysia, Jamaica, New Zealand, Canada, Uganda, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Australia, Malaysia, Malawi, the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka, India, Mauritius, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Zambia, Fiji, the Bahamas, Kenya, the Isle of Man, Great Britain and Malaysia. Australia Post will not issue a postage stamp to mark the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. This has happened only once since 1961 when, in 1985, the CPA conference was held in Saskatchewan. The reason the Canadian authorities did not issue a postage stamp to commemorate that event was that the host was not the Parliament of Canada but the provincial Parliament of Saskatchewan. In 1988 the hosts of the CPA conference will not simply be the Parliament of Australia; they will in fact be the nine parliaments of Australia. They are all hosts and co-sponsors-the State parliaments, the Territory Parliament and the Parliament of Norfolk Island. Despite this, and despite requests from the Presiding Officers, from former President McClelland, from President Sibraa and from Speaker Child, Australia Post is declining to issue a postage stamp to meet the obligations which have otherwise been accepted. In addition to this collection of postage stamps I have here the very large and quite impressive poster which marked the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference when it was held in Great Britain. Apart from the poster featuring the fact that a stamp is to be issued and will be an integral part of marking this on a worldwide basis, it also features a photograph of the new Parliament House in Canberra. This was displayed, I might say, at all post offices throughout Great Britain to mark the gathering in 1986. It says something about the Commonwealth, about the CPA, about Westminster Hall and about the traditions of parliamentary democracy, and it has a special feature about the postage stamp that was being put out to mark this particular occasion. When we look at this collection of postage stamps we can see on them information about the Commonwealth, about the Parliamentary Association, about parliamentary buildings, about the symbols of the Parliament and about the underlying principles of the Parliament. They are all quite clearly indicated. But perhaps more interesting than anything else-and here I draw attention to the set which was issued for the twenty-seventh conference in Fiji-part of the stamp collection that was put out showed the flags of all of the members of the Commonwealth. It was an indication to people around the world that even in these times of trouble there is a family of nations which manages to maintain its collective identity and which manages to combine the interests of countries on all five continents. Australia Post was approached two years ago by the authorities relating to the conference and asked to issue a postage stamp. Only recently has it informed people that it will not do that. It has made offers of pre-stamped envelopes and overprints of one sort or another in a totally unsatisfactory fashion. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the Parliament, the elected Parliament, from time to time has the right to say that a body such as Australia Post, which exists only because we give it statutory authority, which is funded only because we allow it to be funded out of public revenues, also has a public responsibility to join with us in marking something which this Parliament thinks to be important. The holding of the CPA conference is important. Senator Maguire —What reason do they give? Senator PUPLICK —Senator Maguire asks me what reason it gives. It gives the reason that apparently its issues for the year are overcommitted because of the Bicentenary. But it has had two years to put this into the program. It has had plenty of notice, plenty of warning and plenty of opportunity. Yet, despite the appeals of the President, despite the appeals of the Speaker and despite the appeals of the Association and its secretariat, it is not prepared to join not only in marking the CPA conference but also in marking the first function to be held in our new Parliament House. Senator Michael Baume —Arrogant bureaucracy out of control. Senator PUPLICK —I entirely endorse that remark made by Senator Michael Baume. We have seen in the past a number of instances where these authorities believe that they are simply above and beyond not just the question of political interference or ministerial control, but above and beyond responding to the clear wishes of the elected representatives of the people. I think it is an absolute disgrace. I propose next week to give a formal notice of motion on this matter. But I do take this opportunity to draw this very unsatisfactory situation to your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President, to the attention of the Ministers and to the attention of the chamber as a whole. I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the executive and the board of management, or whoever it happens to be, at Australia Post to the fact that this Parliament does not regard that as the decent, satisfactory and proper exercise of its responsibilities. It should now take the necessary steps to make some arrangement for the issuing of a commemorative stamp properly to mark this important occasion which has been on foot by national parliaments since 1961. The current management of Australia Post thinks that it can arrogantly stand aside and say the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the organisation to which the Parliament of Australia and the nine sponsoring parliaments in Australia belong, is so irrelevant to it that it can simply cavalierly ignore a legitimate and proper request which I know has the endorsement of the Speaker and certainly of President Sibraa. I think Australia Post ought to be brought to account on this matter and we ought to demand that it take the necessary action forthwith. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.38) —Before I get around to the matter I wish to speak on tonight I endorse, in the strongest possible terms, the speech just given by Senator Puplick. I was not aware until now that Australia Post had taken this incredible decision not to issue a stamp to mark the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) conference to be held in Canberra. I am a member of the executive of the CPA of this Parliament, as you are yourself, Mr Acting Deputy President. But for the adjournment debate proceeding now, I would be at the annual meeting of that body. I knew that a request for a stamp had been made. It had never entered my head that refusal would be the outcome. I had assumed, obviously very naively, that in due course the stamp would emerge and we would be proud of it, especially in this bicentennial year when the new Parliament House could be featured. I could think of a number of ways of marking the CPA conference in Australia. As I say, without going into it in more detail, I most strongly endorse the remarks that have been made, and I shall certainly support Senator Puplick when he seeks to bring this matter up again when we next meet. I have no doubt that it will be pressed at the hearings on the Supplementary Estimates that will come up soon, although I would hope that the position would have been resolved well before then. Before I proceed with the matter about which I have listed myself to speak, I seek leave, on behalf of Senator Messner, to incorporate in Hansard a statement which he has prepared and which he has shown to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds), and, I think, the Whip in the chamber. They have agreed that it could be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- SENATOR EVANS TO EXPLAIN TELECOM POLITICAL INTERFERENCE CLAIM Senator Evans has failed to adequately explain the recent claims of Government interference in Telecom. Senator Tony Messner, Shadow Minister for Communications, said that there remains a strong suspicion that the Government has instructed Telecom to postpone sensitive restructuring proposals until after the New South Wales State elections. In an internal note circulated within Telecom on 16 February, a manager in Victoria stated that the restructuring of Telecom had been postponed until after 19 March, the date of the NSW elections. Senator Evans dismissed Mr Guthrie's note as completely false. Yet a senior media spokesman for Telecom has been reported as confirming that the ``change process'' had been postponed for a few weeks. This was quoted by Paul Murphy on ``PM'' on Wednesday, 24th February 1988. It is very curious that the postponement will be only until after the NSW State elections. The statement by the Telecom spokesman appears to directly contradict the comments by Senator Evans. Furthermore, according to the Australian Telecommunications Employees' Association, there has been more than one memo circulated within Telecom advising that the ``change process'' had been postponed. Senator Evans can no longer dismiss these allegations out of hand. They demand a full explanation as a matter of urgency. Senator REID —I want to raise tonight the matter of adoptions in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). It is a matter in which I have had an interest for a considerable time, and I am the patron of the Adoptive Parents Association in the ACT. Most of the matters that I have pursued on behalf of members of that Association have in the past related to adoptions of babies from overseas, and there have been a number of problems with the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories in recent years. I shall not go over them tonight because they are recorded in the Hansard of Senate Estimates Committee F for 22 October 1987, when I put a number of questions to the Department. I asked whether the Department agreed that it took only 12 months in Victoria and New South Wales for one of these adoptions to be sorted out, whereas in the ACT assessment of the prospective parents took 20 to 22 months. I also asked how many staff were working in the area. I was told: In full time equivalent it is four staff, I think. I recognise the qualification. However, my next question asked how many couples were on the waiting list for approval. The answer was not given then but subsequently. The answer was that 135 couples were awaiting approval, consisting of 114 awaiting assessment and 21 undergoing assessment. There was no other comment on the number of staff, which I took to be four full time equivalent staff. It was indicated quite clearly that new procedures were being adopted and changes were being made. I have subsequently had a letter from the Department which sets out some of those arrangements in more detail. I have a letter from a constituent that must be referred to the Minister. I shall not mention the constituent's name here-I do not think that is of any consequence-but I will convey it to the Minister. My constituent has been married for five years to a woman who, at the time of marriage, had a three-year-old daughter, and he wishes to adopt the child. He applied for adoption on 18 December 1986 and was somewhat surprised to be told that it would take about 16 months for the application to be assessed. This was not the adoption of an overseas child in which considerations would perhaps be looked at in a deeper fashion; this couple have married and the husband wishes to adopt his wife's child. My constituent has been very patient. He contacted the Department on Monday last, as the 16 months are passing, and inquired as to when the assessment would take place. He was told that he would have to wait at least another 12 months. The child, who knows that adoption is to take place and who wants it to take place, who wants to feel that she is very much a part of this family, is now eight years old. She keeps asking what is happening. `Why not? Why don't you adopt me?', she asks my constituent. She is entitled to ask that. He has been told that the adoption section of the Department has three staff part time. I remind the Senate that the answer I got was that last October 135 couples were awaiting approval action. My client is upset and distressed at what has occurred. He cannot believe that this is happening and he has raised it with me. I have had talks with the Department. I know that it is understaffed. There are about 14,000 employees in the Office of ACT Administration. The highest priority that the Minister must have when deploying these 14,000 staff must be to see that, where taxpayers are seeking something from the Department, there is an actual relationship between taxpayer, constituent and the Department, for the things that have to be done to make life work smoothly, and that there are sufficient staff to see that there are not undue delays and delays of this kind. I would myself have far fewer public servants in some of the massive policy sections in Government departments and more people on the counter, in the areas where people seek support or assistance. In this case we cannot say that my constituent is asking for much. He merely wants put into place the procedures which will enable him to adopt his wife's child, their having been married five years at this stage and having waited a reasonable time before they applied for the adoption. The areas of housing, social security and the Commonwealth Employment Service are the places where we need public servants who can deal with the problems that people take to departments. If there are now only three part time staff in this section, I think the Minister's attention needs to be drawn to it. Even if there are four full time staff, there are not sufficient to deal adequately with the needs of families who wish to adopt a child. I urge the Minister to look closely at this matter to see that it is rectified and that the list moves more quickly and people are not put through what is occurring to my constituent. For people who have adopted one child and wish to adopt another, it is years between the first and second child. They are not in a position to plan their families as others might do and have the children spaced at the ages that they want. They are being forced to space them according to the machinations of the Department that are visited upon them. I say to the Minister that it is a matter that needs close attention. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.46) —I wish to comment on the removal of the name of Mr Stephen Loosley from Australian Labor Party (ALP) advertising in New South Wales where, until today, he has appeared as the authorising agent for advertisements for the forthcoming State election on 19 March. This is a matter of some moment to this chamber because of Mr Loosley's associations both with members of the Labor Party in this chamber and with the administration of the Labor Party in general at both State and Federal level. The issue of concern relates to the scandalous diversion of electoral funding from a woodchip company, which was intended by that company to go to the publicly revealed election campaign fund of the Labor Party, into the secret maintenance fund so that the Labor Party would not be obliged in the last Federal election to confess that it was using woodchippers' money at a time when it was phonily protesting its pursuit of the greenie vote. The decision taken by Mr Unsworth to replace Mr Loosley's name with his own was taken, according to a television report I saw tonight, because Mr Unsworth said, of the police report relating to this matter which has today, I understand, gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Senator Bishop asked a question on this very issue today in this place and it was treated with contempt by the Government, which pretended to be offended by the thrust of the question-a very proper question, in view of Mr Unsworth's remarks on the media this evening. I wish to make what I believe to be some more disturbing points that emerged from Senator Bishop's earlier comments today on the question of the change to the New South Wales electoral Act that took place in June 1987. The remarkable coincidence of those changes in the electoral Act should be underlined. Senator Bishop quickly dealt with them, before proceeding to another matter, during the matters of public interest debate. I think it should be stressed that the information she revealed-that this change in the law took place which changed the reporting status of any gifts for administrative purposes in New South Wales-would have clearly been uppermost in the minds of Labor apparatchiks both at State and Federal level when dealing with any contribution to their funds, either electoral campaign funds or electoral maintenance funds. I believe that the onus is on officials of the Labor Party in those circumstances to explain publicly-no matter what the police inquiry finds-why they deliberately set out, it appears, to divert this money at a time when the subject of the manner in which these sorts of donations should be handled was a matter of major moment to that Party because of the change in the law. Let us recall the dates. On 11 June, as I recall it, Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd sent a covering letter and a cheque for $10,000 to the Labor Federal President, Mr Mick Young. It was date stamped as having been received-as I recall seeing the letter reproduced in the newspapers-on about 14 June. At that point, even if those funds had been directed by the woodchip company to the administration and maintenance fund of the ALP, that letter and the $10,000 donation would have had to be revealed under the State law. Of course, two days later the State law changed. An administration cheque was no longer obliged to be revealed because the State law was changed to fit in with the Commonwealth law. With that kind of timing situation, can any member of the Labor Party protest innocence regarding the handling of this matter-innocence of the knowledge that the law was being changed so that it would, in effect, have a retrospective impact? Although the cheque was received on 14 June the law that came into effect from 16 June would relate to the next return of the political party before the next election. It seems to me in the circumstances absolutely incredible that we have had this behaviour from Mr Loosley and Mr Young in recent times. They appear to be trying to create an impression that there was a simple and honest mistake. As I said, the change in the law must have been very high in their consciousness, yet in those circumstances there was an `honest mistake'. I remind the Senate that within three days Mr Loosley's very strong recollection that Mr Young had indicated to him that the company wanted the money paid into the ALP's administration account changed to an acknowledgment-equally firmly held, apparently-that it was all Mr Loosley's fault, that he had found the letter which he had not acted on and that, apparently, Mr Young had given him no such instruction. Mr Loosley had also said that not 1c of Harris-Daishowa's donation was spent on Mr Jim Snow's campaign; in other words, the request of Harris-Daishowa was totally ignored. Yet on the very same day that it was receipted by the State Labor Party-and, of course, well after the change in law on 16 June; it was receipted on 24 June-and the acknowledgment went out to Harris-Daishowa, $6,000 was transferred to Mr Snow's campaign. But Mr Loosley has a very strong recollection that not 1c of Harris-Daishowa's donation was spent on Mr Snow's campaign. However, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr Snow is not prepared to confirm that he had been told by the company in advance that the money would assist his re-election campaign. I believe that Mr Snow has a particular responsibility to tell the chamber of which he is a member whether he was advised that he was to get assistance and that, when he received the $6,000, he assumed that that would have been part of a donation made by Harris-Daishowa to the Labor Party. It seems to me that many answers are required by the Parliament, quite apart from the police inquiry, the report of which, I understand, has gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions today. There is one thing that I specifically want to know. It relates to the presence of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson-who, by the way, had no official role in the matter-in very close proximity to Mr Stephen Loosley, the Secretary of the New South Wales ALP, who, by the way, still appears to be in possession of his kneecaps. Senator Reid —A bit like the Prime Minister at a sporting function. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Indeed; he was as close to Mr Loosley as the Prime Minister is to the captain of a winning sporting team; I take the point, Senator. The close attendance of Senator Richardson is interesting. Mr Loosley is still equipped with kneecaps, although he has lost one thing-that is, his right to authorise New South Wales election advertising. This close association at the Press conference at which Mr Loosley sought to take the entire blame for the Labor Party's scandalous conversion of the woodchip money is significant. The Senate will recall that Mr Loosley declared Mr Young's innocence by claiming that he had belatedly found the missing Harris-Daishowa letter in his office and that this somehow absolved Mr Young from any guilt. I do not know what it absolved Mr Young from. Let us face it: did it absolve Mr Young from conspiring with Mr Loosley to use the money? It may well not. One does not know what Mr Loosley meant or, indeed, what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) meant, when they said that Mr Young was cleared by the discovery of the letter. There are many things that could have happened as a result of that letter arriving and being sent from Mr Young's office to Mr Loosley's office. The discovery of that letter in Mr Loosley's office removes only one prospect-that is, that it may have been shredded. That is the only prospect that it removes. As to guilt, it removes no such suggestion and no such possibility. It is a matter for the police inquiry. The attempts by the Labor Party to influence the outcome of that inquiry by declaring Mr Young innocent are, I believe, ludicrous and reflect the normal standover tactics that one expects from this Party opposite. Talking about standover tactics, why was Senator Richardson so closely present with Mr Loosley at the time of the mea culpa Press conference held by Mr Loosley? I ask that question in view of the very close personal relationship that exists between Mr Loosley and Senator Richardson, including their joint ownership of a home unit in Neutral Bay. I wonder whether the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) has taken any steps, as I believe he should have done to ensure that there was no possibility of any suggestion of impropriety surrounding this matter, to request the police inquiry to look into any role Senator Richardson may have had in this scandal. Unless Senator Richardson has some extraordinarily good reason for his close proximity to Mr Loosley, apart from the fact that they are business partners, which still would not explain why he would attend such a Press conference, I believe he should come forward and tell the Senate exactly why he was there. Whose interests was he protecting? How did this very busy Minister who looks after so many things and is so busy rushing around the rainforests of Queensland have time to attend this conference? I certainly believe this raises serious questions about the whole administration of the right wing Labor machine in New South Wales. I believe this Parliament, no matter what the outcome of the police inquiry, has the right to full and detailed explanations from the dramatis personae in this scandal, with the exception of Mr Young, who has taken his bear and gone home. I believe we have a right to know what has gone on. Although making a clean breast of it belatedly has become something of a required habit when Ministers in this Government have been found out, I suggest that in this case there is a requirement, no matter what the outcome of police inquiries, for the Ministers involved-certainly Senator Richardson-to come clean on what has happened. What was his attendance there all about? I think a failure to do so would at least convey to the people of Australia some indication of a concern that, while this Government and this Prime Minister continually talk about integrity, they have an inability to practise it. I conclude simply by saying that I totally support what Senator Chris Puplick said tonight about Australia Post. I remind the Senate that this is the same Australia Post that wasted $120,000 of taxpayers' money by printing and overprinting a special America's Cup victory stamp before we had been defeated in the latest America's Cup challenge. If it is good enough for Australia Post to speculate with public money on a victory in the America's Cup which did not take place and to put a stamp with an appropriate `V' symbol overprint on it and if, in Australia Post's mind, that sort of thing is more important than a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association-an historic meeting; the first major meeting in the new Parliament House-all I can say is that the judgment of those people involved at Australia Post is such as to encourage many of us to the view that the sooner it is privatised the better. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(7.04) —I have been able to obtain from Senator Evans's office some advice about the Australia Post commemorative stamp issue. I think anyone listening to the comments of Senator Puplick would wish to know just what the present state of play is in regard to Australia Post's attitude to the commemorative stamp. I am advised that Australia Post will be issuing the stamp on 9 May to commemorate the opening of the new Parliament House. Australia Post management has discussed with the organisers of the conference the possibility of providing some form of philatelic memento for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference which could, perhaps, include the new Parliament House stamps. I do not know whether that is what Senator Puplick was referring to in regard to special stamps-- Senator Reid —I think he was referring to a stamp that specifically referred to the CPA on the document. Senator REYNOLDS —Sure. However, I think what is important in this brief is that further discussions are to be held shortly. It sounds as though the views of honourable senators and, I am sure, of members of the other place have not, in fact, fallen on deaf ears and perhaps Australia Post is considering how it can actually recognise this important event. I certainly look forward to hearing further advice on that. Senator Reid has had a bad week in terms of the issues she has raised in relation to delays. The situation described in relation to adoption obviously must be very concerning for the people involved. I can only hope that the Minister responsible will take up her concerns and see whether there is not some way to speed up that process. I agree with the honourable senator that adoption is not a matter that should be lightly delayed in this fashion, because the issue is extremely sensitive and it is important for all parties that it be processed as smoothly and as reasonably speedily as possible, although all relevant issues have to be addressed in a responsible way. Senator Michael Baume has raised a number of issues about the Press conference that Senator Richardson attended. I do not know whether he is unaware that these issues have all been addressed. In his final remarks he called on Senator Richardson to come clean. Senator Richardson did address precisely this issue in Question Time last week. I suggest that the honourable senator look in Hansard; he will find that Senator Richardson spelled out precisely why he was in attendance at that particular Press conference. I really do not think I have anything else to add to the comments of Senator Baume. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.08 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 March The following papers were tabled. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1987- No. 189-Export Control (Fees) as amended (Amendment). No. 19-Export Control (Fees) as amended (Amendment). Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act-Revocation Orders (2) by the Attorney-General pursuant to subsection 20 (2), dated 5 January 1988.