Wednesday, 16 March 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 1,324 citizens) and Stone (from 450 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent the Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Calvert (from 56 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to Telecom's plans to introduce time charges for local calls; 2. that while Telecom remains a public enterprise, it must be accountable to the public, its owners; and 3. while Telecom retains a statutory monopoly which shields it from the discipline of competition, it should not be unilaterally allowed to impose extortionate charges upon the public. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon all Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled to take action to prevent Telecom introducing time charges for local calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 199 citizens). 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 367 citizens). 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 will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not introduce timed calls in the absence of widespread community support. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Panizza (from 137 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Beahan (from 140 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. the right of the people of a country to make law independent of politicians should be a basic and independent right; 2. consequently there is an urgent need for constitutional reforms. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: support the Constitutional Alteration (Electors Initiative) 1987 Bill to alter the constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: The number of people protesting against the proposed closure of the post office located at 403 Magill Road, St Morris. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Request that the post office at 403 Magill Road, St Morris remain open. by Senator Maguire (from 385 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will Refer the above mentioned Bill to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That although elector-initiated referendums are conducted successfully in such countries as Switzerland and the U.S.A., no such facility exists for Australian citizens. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Initiate the necessary action for a referendum to be held to amend the Constitution to provide for such an initiative on the following conditions: If a specified percentage of voters (such as 2%) sign a petition asking that a referendum be held on a certain question the Federal Government would be obliged to hold that referendum and the result would become law. And your petitioners further humbly pray that the referendum be timed to coincide with the referendum to be held to extend the term of office of the House of Representatives from 3 to 4 years. And we humbly pray that you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 146 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned showeth that the standard of Australia's diplomatic representatives overseas is a matter of concern to all Australians. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should seek to have the appointment of Hon. Brian Burke as our Ambassador to Ireland deferred until such time as the charges presently pending against Mr. Len Brush and Mr. Robert Martin shall have been heard and concluded, and until matters arising therefrom shall have been answered to the satisfaction of both houses of the Parliament of Western Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Whereas the Hon. Brian Burke whilst serving as Premier of the State of Western Australia was also fulfilling the position of State Treasurer: Whereas the State Treasurer is the Officer of the Parliament responsible for the oversight of Building Societies and Credit Unions, and the Superannuation Board in Western Australia: Whereas investigations appear to be suggesting at least maladministrations and possibly illegalities in the affairs of the Superannuation Board and some Building Societies and Credit Unions: Whereas Section 25 (Subsection 2) of the Superannuation Act states that no loans shall be made by the Superannuation Board without the approval of the State Treasurer: And whereas it would appear that investigations to be complete would require the presence of the principal officer involved: We would therefore humbly request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, in the interests of justice and good government, should seek to have the appointment of the Hon. Brian Burke as our Ambassador to Ireland deferred until such time as these matters are fully investigated and proved. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 188 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. That we express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances for the purpose of food irradiation and disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 189 citizens). Petitions received. The PRESIDENT —I am pleased to be able to inform honourable senators that Australia Post will issue a special stamp and first day cover to commemorate the thirty-fourth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference to be held in the new Parliament House in September this year. Senators and members who have been following this matter will be aware that my predecessor, Douglas McClelland, had raised the possibility of a special stamp some time ago. When this approach did not succeed, Madam Speaker joined me in approaching Australia Post. Senators Puplick and Macklin, together with the Hon. Gordon Scholes, also made representations on the matter. Yesterday at a meeting with officials from Australia Post I was informed that such a stamp will be issued on 19 September, the opening day of the conference. The production of this stamp will continue the tradition established by all host parliaments, with the exception of one, of arranging for such a stamp issue to coincide with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference. Australia Post's decision to issue a special stamp and the bipartisan support it has received is yet another sign of the undoubted success of the conference in September-an event which I am sure will be one of the highlights for this Parliament in 1988. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I withdraw the notice of motion which I gave on this matter. I express great satisfaction that Australia Post has seen the error of its ways and the predominance of the Parliament in this particular matter. Withdrawal of Notice of Motion Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I withdraw General Business notice of motion No. 70 standing in my name in relation to the introduction of a Bill which would have provided the Presiding Officers with the power to issue such a stamp. I am very pleased with the outcome. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —On behalf of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting he will move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the days of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this period of sittings be as follows: Thursday, 17 March and Friday, 18 March; Tuesday, 22 March to Friday, 25 March; Tuesday, 12 April to Friday, 15 April; Monday, 18 April to Thursday, 21 April; Tuesday, 26 April to Friday, 29 April; Tuesday, 17 May to Friday, 20 May; Monday, 23 May to Thursday, 26 May; and Monday, 30 May to Thursday, 2 June. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) for the remainder of this week and for the weeks commencing Tuesday, 22 March, 12 and 26 April and 17 May, the Sessional Orders relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for Week 1 apply; (b) for the weeks commencing Monday, 18 April and 23 and 30 May, the hours of meeting and routine of business for Week 2 apply. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that Mick Young's appointment as a consultant to Qantas is yet another `job for the boys' and makes a mockery of the reason given for his resignation as a Minister and for his retirement from Parliament; (b) further notes that Mr Young's appointment is a last ditch attempt by the Government to sell the need for the privatisation of Qantas to Caucus and the trade union movement; and (c) expresses its opinion that Mr Young's job with Qantas would not have been necessary if the Government, and in particular, the Prime Minister, had better managed the privatisation debate and had foreseen the need to abolish the various Government-imposed constraints on Qantas a lot earlier. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the South Australian National Football League on winning the National Football League Bicentennial Australian Football Championships. (b) notes the impressive performances of the Northern Territory Football League and the New South Wales Football League in winning the Second Division Championship and winning the third position in the first division, respectively. (c) expresses its concern to the Victorian Football League that it must improve its performance so that future interstate matches with South Australia are not so one sided, as may lead the South Australian football public to become bored with interstate matches if the Victorians cannot provide reasonable competition. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its concern at the continuing deterioration of industrial relations in the building industry in the Australian Capital Territory, and endorses the views expressed by Arbitration Commissioner Baird that the situation on a number of Canberra building sites is `Anarchistic'; (b) condemns the refusal of building unions in the Australian Capital Territory to comply with the direction of Commissioner Baird to meet with employers, lift all bans and return to work; and (c) urges the Minister and the Federal Government to take immediate action to assist in the resolution of the industrial disputes which are so damaging to the business sector and the economy of Canberra. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia) —In a spirit of bipartisanship, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the South Australian and Northern Territory football teams on their victories in Division 1 and Division 2 respectively of the Bicentennial Australian Rules Football Carnival; and (b) requires Victorian Senator Gareth Evans, as the Manager of Government Business, to transport and communicate to the Victorian Football League the condolences of the Senate and the hope they will win another football match before the Tricentennial Carnival. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the South African Government for its decision to go ahead with the hanging of six black South Africans for the murder of a black municipal councillor despite the fact that the Appeals Court has accepted that there is no proof that the six had contributed to the councillor's death; (b) further condemns the South African Government for ignoring appeals for clemency from Australia's Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, and from countries such as Britain and the United States; and (c) calls on the Australian Government to withdraw visas to the 100 South African gold experts as a practical demonstration of Australia's opposition to the apartheid system which allows this obscenity. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited-Annual Report 1986-87. 2. Poultry Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Council Act 1985. 3. Homes Away from Home-Final Report of the National Review of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. 4. Australian Wheat Board-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's report-sub-section 63 (4) of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984. 5. Schooling in Rural Australia-Commonwealth Schools Commission Report. 6. CSIRO-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's report-section 51 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 7. Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport-volume 1: Report-volumes 2 and 3: Support Papers. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray for Senator Richardson) agreed to: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 10 December 1987, namely: the construction of high capacity fire hydrants within the parliamentary zone. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(10.10) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- EXPORT INSPECTION (SERVICE CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1988 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 to remove limitations on the imposition of charge for export inspection services performed outside export registered establishments. The Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 is one of three Acts introduced by the Government to give as much flexibility as possible in determining appropriate export inspection charging systems for different sectors of the primary produce export industry (the other Acts are the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act 1985). At the time the Act was introduced most export inspection was carried out in establishments that were registered for the preparation of goods for export. Increasingly, export inspection services are being performed at places outside export registered establishments in response to requests by persons who are not occupiers of registered establishments. In many cases inspection is not for the purpose of enforcing Australian export controls but to facilitate exports by providing certification required by the importing country. The registration of these places would be wasteful and would place an unnecessary burden on industry. Consequently the Government believes further flexibility is needed to permit effective cost recovery for these services while ensuring that industry is not burdened with unnecessary legislative requirements. The Bill amends those provisions of the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 which prevent the imposition of charge for export inspection services provided in places which are not registered export establishments. The Bill will have only a minor financial impact, as any charge imposed will in the main replace cost recovery measures that currently apply. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGES COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1988 The principal purpose of this Bill is to revise the definition of `prescribed commodity' to allow charges to be imposed for the export inspection of fruit, vegetables, live animals and animal reproductive material. The changes will enable effective cost recovery measures to be implemented for all export inspection, consistent with the Government's cost recovery policy. The Bill also amends the provisions of the Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985 to enable charges to be collected for export inspection services performed at places which are not registered export establishments. These amendments complement the amendments to the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 which are included in the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill 1988. An explanation of this initiative is given in the second reading speech on the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill 1987. The Bill will have only a very minor financial impact, as charges collected will replace cost recovery measures that currently apply. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.11) —I move: That the following questions be referred to the Committee of Privileges: Whether a petition to the Senate was suppressed in consequence of a threat of legal proceedings by the Hon. Brian Burke, and, if so, whether this constituted a contempt of Parliament. Mr President, yesterday when giving notice of this motion following your consideration of my request for consideration of it, I outlined very briefly the matters which I had placed before you in my letter of 11 March. What I wish to do this morning is to deal with the same matters in a little more detail and to raise some of the quite difficult issues which I think have to be considered by the Committee of Privileges. The first thing that could be said about the motion is that it relates to a petition which was presented in the Senate today by Senator Knowles. One of the two petitions which were presented by her relating to this matter was a petition in the form which gave rise to the complaint and the threat of legal proceedings by the Hon. Brian Burke. Headed `Petition', it reads: To The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned showeth that the standard of Australia's diplomatic representatives overseas is a matter of concern to all Australians. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should seek to have the appointment of Honourable Brian Burke as our Ambassador to Ireland deferred until such time as the charges presently pending against Mr Len Brush and Mr Robert Martin shall have been heard and concluded, and until matters arising therefrom shall have been answered to the satisfaction of both Houses of the Parliament of Western Australia. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. I would have thought that that was not a particularly startling petition. In the large number of petitions that go through this chamber one would not have thought that it would give rise to any particular concern; but, this petition, which was produced by a retired public servant in Western Australia, at his own initiative, apparently caused Mr Burke such concern as to lead him to threaten the person concerned with legal action. I have not named in this place the person who organised the petition, although I was advised by telephone this morning that he has been named in the West Australian newspaper. It is not my intention to name him in this place. Although he is happy to give evidence to the Privileges Committee, clearly he has been put in a very difficult position in his association with the petition to date and, as far as I am concerned, that is in his hands and not mine. Senator Robert Ray —I know his name. Senator CHANEY —The Minister for Home Affairs says that he knows his name. I am quite sure that the whole Labor machine knows his name. No doubt the very heavy Minister will be a party to sitting on this poor gentleman. I suggest that the Minister simply curb his impatience-- Senator Robert Ray —We will be doing more than that. We will see who put him up to it before the day is out. Senator CHANEY —It is good to hear the Minister going on like that. He assumes that everybody on this side of the Parliament behaves like Labor members of parliament that we read about in the daily newspapers. Therefore, I am not concerned about the Minister's intervention. Mr President, the petition came to my attention prior to circulation, as I made clear in my letter to you. The individual concerned contacted the Liberal Party of Australia and asked about the form which a petition had to take. That person was referred to my office and, I think, probably to another office as well. Certainly, he had contact with my office and was advised as to the form which a petition has to take if it is to be presented to this place. All honourable senators would be aware that we often receive petitions that are not in proper form. I think as recently as yesterday the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) rose in this place and sought leave to present a petition which was not in proper form. That is not an uncommon thing. I am sure that senators and members generally would have had experience of being asked for guidance with respect to the wording of a petition. I simply make the point that in my own contact it was certainly in no way something that was instigated by me. As far as I know-this will be a matter which no doubt the Privileges Committee may wish to examine and which may well come within the purview of the Privileges Committee as it examines this issue-this is a matter that was initiated by this person on his own account and because of his own concern. I bring the matter forward knowing that there will be opportunities in the Privileges Committee to test that proposition. The Privileges Committee has a majority of Government senators. There is no suggestion that this should be sent off to some sort of hung jury. It will be going before a committee of senators who, I have no doubt, will in the appropriate Senate tradition examine this matter on the basis of the facts that are put before them and they will, at least in the Committee activities, put aside the politics of this matter and deal with it on the basis of the very substantial issues which, as I intend to indicate, fail to be dealt with. I suppose to many honourable senators the subject of this petition is a matter of some mystery. What is it and who are the people named in the petition? Why is it that there should be a view on the part of some citizen that Mr Burke should not go to Ireland pending the hearing of this matter? The fact of the matter is that the people named are subject to a number of criminal charges including corruption, forgery and uttering false documents. They have pleaded not guilty. In those circumstances I think the facts have to be dealt with circumspectly. In this debate I have no intention of putting any matter before the Senate that has not already been published. I think that the simplest way of explaining the factual background of this matter is to quote from the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 March which summarised what this matter is about. The article has been published since, I understand, these people were committed for trial. I assume therefore that it is in order from a legal point of view. The article headed `Anatomy of the Brush-Martin loan affair' reads: The Brush-Martin Affair has been a source of great embarrassment to the W.A. Government and its Premier, Mr Burke, who retired from politics this week. Brush joined the ALP when he was 19, and became an adviser to Mr Burke on financial and superannuation matters following the Labor Government's election in 1983. Brush's wife, Brenda, served on Mr Burke's staff for 10 years, and prior to her resignation early last year was Mr Burke's principal private secretary. In 1984, Brush took the $60,000-a-year post of chairman of the W.A. Superannuation Board, and oversaw its rapid growth. He was also appointed one of the commissioners on the newly formed State Government Insurance Commission. Under his guidance, the Superannuation Board became an aggressive and successful investor, and partici- pated in deals such as a $500 million development at Fremantle with Robert Martin, and proposed developments in Perth's CBD with Mr Laurie Connell and Mr Alan Bond. The Brush-Martin affair surfaced in the media early last year, and was subsequently taken up and pursued by the Senate Opposition. Soon after, the W.A. Fraud Squad began inquiries into some of the complicated allegations concerning loans from Martin to companies controlled by Brush, and investment by Mr Brush in companies associated with Martin. These dealings were occurring at a time when the Superannuation Board was involved in the Fremantle development with Martin. Rumours about the loans had been circulating in Perth from late 1986, and Mr Burke later told State Parliament he was aware of them from about December. He revealed in Parliament in April last year that by January he had learnt that Brush was the public servant allegedly involved in the loan affair. Despite this, he had appointed Mr Brush in February to an even more powerful position in the management of Government funds. This was the setting up of Funds Corp, an arm of the W.A. Development Corporation. Funds Corp will handle the State Treasury's money-market investments, as well as the property, equity and money-market investments of the SGIC and the Superannuation Board. When the loan affair became public, Mr Burke maintained his support for Brush, suggesting that the affair appeared to involve merely misjudgment by him but not impropriety. However, the Premier conceded that Brush had been ``hopelessly naive and foolish'' in accepting a loan from someone with whom the Superannuation Board had dealings. Within a week, Brush had resigned his official positions. He was charged soon afterwards. His successor as board chairman and head of Funds Corp was Mr Tony Lloyd, who more recently has been appointed the new managing director of Rothwells, and the W.A. Government's representative on the company's board. Martin and Brush first appeared in court on April 22 last year to face a total of 25 charges of corruption, forgery and uttering false documents. They have pleaded not guilty to all charges. That is the sort of information which is on the public record in Western Australia. I quoted from a Sydney newspaper because it contains a succinct summary of a matter which has received massive publicity over a considerable period. But I remind the Senate that the petition is one in which it is suggested that the appointment of Mr Burke as Ambassador should be deferred until the charges which are referred to in that summary have been dealt with. The threat of legal proceedings was a very serious matter for the petitioner. I heard of this matter next when he had, through solicitors, entered into a settlement with Mr Burke and with Mr Burke's solicitors. A condition of that settlement, as I understand it, was that he would collect up those petitions he could, he would have them destroyed, if necessary in the presence of Mr Burke's solicitors, and he would pay Mr Burke's costs of, I think, some $500. The situation was that the petitioner, having taken legal advice, was in a position where he simply could not afford the litigation that would have been involved in proceeding against the former Premier of Western Australia. Senator Robert Ray —Ha, ha! Senator CHANEY —We get a laugh from the Minister on the front bench. I remind the Senate of how often people have complained about the cost of litigation and the need for representatives of this Parliament to receive legal aid because of the very high cost of representation. I believe it would be true of most people in Western Australia that the threat of legal proceedings from somebody with a relatively long pocket would be something that would cause them very deep concern. That is a matter which I think will be made very clear ultimately. We are dealing with the situation of a person who is seeking to petition this Parliament-a person who was threatened with legal proceedings and, under the threat of those legal proceedings, stepped back. We are dealing here with a situation where clearly there has been an interference with the activities of somebody who was seeking to petition the Parliament and to get other people to petition the Parliament on a matter which was of concern to him and on a matter which clearly involves the public interest. Is this something which ought to concern the Senate? In my view, it is extremely clear that it should concern the Senate, because the reality is that we have a society in which the distribution of wealth and power is very uneven. We have a society in which it is very difficult for the ordinary man and woman to withstand the very considerable forces that are arrayed against them in the community. With that imbalance of power, we in Parliament should be concerned to preserve the right of the men and women of Australia to see this Parliament as a place to which they can have recourse without facing the costs that are inherent in the legal system and those other organisations in our society which are there to protect individual rights and liberties. I regard it as a very serious matter that there should be any interference with the free access of citizens to this place. That is why I think this is a matter of major importance. As I will go on to explain, it is a matter of difficulty; but it is not a novel matter that someone should seek to interfere with a petitioner who is bringing forward something which is of difficulty to him. For that reason there is some authority which will be available to guide the Privileges Committee, quite apart from the legislation which has just been passed by this Parliament. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice deals with misconduct on page 166 under the heading `Misconduct affecting petitioners and others soliciting business before either House', and it reads as follows: Petitioners and other persons soliciting business before either House or its committees, e.g. counsel, agents and solicitors, are considered as under the protection of the High Court of Parliament, and obstruction of, or interference with such persons in the exercise of their rights or the discharge of their duties, or conduct calculated to deter them or other persons from preferring or prosecuting petitions or bills or from discharging their duties may be treated as a breach of privilege. Erskine May lists a series of past examples of such interference. I quote just a number of those examples which are on page 167 of the same volume. For example, it gives as an example of this type of contempt, `Speaking scandalous and reproachful words against petitioners whose petition is appointed to be heard'. That is an eighteenth century precedent. We find an even earlier precedent, that it has been found to be a contempt to bring `an action against petitioners for a libel alleged to be contained in a petition presented by them to the House of Commons'. The authority for that is Gee's case. Finally, one finds as an example of this sort of contempt, `Casting aspersions on persons for having petitioned the House of Commons'. Quite clearly, those examples are of the same nature as the conduct complained of on this occasion. Of course, what we have now is a Parliamentary Privileges Act which confirms the privileges of this Parliament but in statutory form. We find in section 16, under the heading `Parliamentary privilege in court proceedings': For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared and enacted that the provisions of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688 apply in relation to the Parliament of the Commonwealth and, as so applying, are to be taken to have, in addition to any other operation, the effect of the subsequent provisions of this section. It goes on to say: For the purposes of the provisions of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688 as applying in relation to the Parliament . . . `Proceedings in Parliament' means all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing- I stress those words because one is entitled to look to precedent to see what those words in their generality can mean. We find reference in paragraph (b) which states: the presentation or submission of a document to a House or a committee. In my view the Committee of Privileges will have to examine this Act as well as the history of this matter and determine whether there is a breach of privilege in the interference that was afforded this petitioner-which is my personal view. I referred earlier in my comments to the fact that real difficulties are occasioned by this matter. Those difficulties relate to the fact that one can have competing rights in a society such as our own. One of the rights that we have in our society is to take action for defamation if we believe that we have been defamed. Of course, it will be the view of the Opposition that that is an important civil right and one which should be preserved. That means that, in looking at this matter, one has to examine the interaction between the principles that I have raised with respect to the privileges of this Parliament and the rights of a petitioner to petition this Parliament, and the rights of any citizen, whether he has a long pocket or a short pocket and whether or not he has been in public life. I in no way suggest that the former Premier is denied the normal rights of citizenship. That would be an absurd proposition and I do not bring that forward on this basis. The Privileges Committee has to examine what rights might be held by any citizen, including the Hon. Brian Burke, and how they fit with the rights of somebody to petition this Parliament. I do not wish to enter into the question of whether this petition is defamatory. It seems to me that that is a matter that cannot be determined by a politician, and any view I might express would be seen as being a biased and prejudiced view rather than a legal view. But let me say that I believe as a politician that it shows an extraordinary sensitivity to criticism to regard that as something that ought to be actionable in the courts. I doubt whether there is a senator in this place who has not had harsher things than that said about him or her, but who has not even given consideration to bringing an action for defamation against the citizen involved. Actions for defamation by politicians are not unknown in this country. We have a Prime Minister who is particularly tender in these matters and who, if rumour is correct, has done very well out of them over the years. However, let me say that I believe that most of us follow a rule that, in the to and fro of democratic debate, it does not do us to be unduly tender, to the detriment of the rights of our fellow citizens. I believe that is an appropriate course to follow. I would not say that there are no circumstances in which I as an individual would not sue. However, I would say that on occasions I have looked at a matter and thought, `What a nonsense. It is actionable, but I would be quite wrong to pursue it'. I am sure that many honourable senators have made the same judgment. I just make that point. I have read out the petition. I think it is one that, on any fair reading, makes an extremely mild point about a politician who has operated at the level that Mr Burke has. By that I mean one who has held the high offices that Mr Burke has held, and been subject, I assume, to some public criticism and scrutiny in the past. I would say that in judgments made at a political level on this matter, the former Premier has shown quite extraordinary sensitivity. The sorts of issues which may fail to be considered by the Committee are those that relate to the extent to which a petition, including its preparation, circulation and normal political process, is exempted from the general law relating to defamation-quite apart from any question of whether this particular petition is defamatory, which on the face of it it appears to me not to be. The sorts of issues raised include the question of whether in those circumstances there is an absolute privilege or, alternatively, whether the circulation of the petition is merely a matter that would attract qualified privilege, in which case if it came to an action for defamation it would be open for the complainant, the plaintiff, to show that what was done was done maliciously, and therefore that qualified privilege would not afford a defence. In other words, they are quite difficult issues. Though of course I have not exhaustively canvassed the issues, as the Committee will do, I suspect that there are issues which the Committee may well feel cannot be determined by it or, at best, can simply be dealt with by the Committee giving an opinion which would not be binding upon a court. The reality is that the operation of privilege is a matter which would be determined by the courts in those cases where there was an action before the courts in which privilege, either absolute or qualified, was claimed. They are matters that may well await determination. Perhaps they will be determined only when some person of considerable financial means is set upon by somebody in Parliament, and is taken through the courts in a full-blooded way in extensive litigation. There is nothing in politics today that suggests that the Labor Party is in the business of entering into litigation against the rich and powerful. I think that the reverse appears to be true. I bring forward this motion at a time when the cosy relationships between this Government and business are a matter of acute concern not only to the public but also to many members of the Labor Party and, I would hope, to many members of the Government. I suppose that all of those issues form a framework within which this matter comes forward to be considered. However, I would say that the fundamental point is that here we have a citizen who I believe on any examination-and I can only speak of the facts as they are currently known to me-would be seen to have had an independent wish to petition this place. There is no question that he had contact with my political party, but my contact with him is on the basis that he has come to us for guidance as to how to go about the matter and not otherwise. I have received a specific assurance on that matter. Senator Robert Ray —That is you. There were others. Senator CHANEY —That is me. I make that point very clear. The fact that there are others should not in any way alter the situation, because my assurance was that that was the basis of the approach-that it was a self-initiated matter. I might say that it would make no difference if it was not. The Labor Party and the Government should not seek to muddy the water in that regard. The promotion of petitions by members of parliament is by no means unknown. I could have produced a letter that was left in the photocopier of the Perth offices by a Labor member of parliament distributing petitions against the former Government. Senator Michael Baume —What is wrong with that? Senator CHANEY —I do not believe that there is anything wrong with that at all. I simply make the point that the waters should not be muddied in this regard. I can give a specific example of a Labor senator from Western Australia doing something which I am not suggesting is improper, namely, the promotion of a petition. However, I simply want to make the point that the fact, as I am advised, is that this petition was promoted by the individual concerned. It does not, however, go to the substance of the question. The substance of the question is whether any individual in this country who is concerned about an element of public administration is entitled to go around with his fellow citizens, having put that onto a piece of paper, having put it in the form of a petition, seeking their support in expressing that concern to this Parliament. In my view, if that is not a protected activity, it is an activity that should be protected. We have passed in this Parliament privilege legislation which is defective if that is not a protected activity. Where does the citizen in this country go if he cannot petition the Parliament on these matters? Does he go to the media? We hear from many critics of the media in this country that it is owned by a small group of people; that we do not have a widely dispersed ownership of a free and critical media; that we have a media which is in itself not in a form to protect the public interest in many circumstances. Does the citizen go to the law? The reality is that, for the ordinary citizen in this country-I would include in this category even someone on a politician's salary-the prospect of civil litigation is terrifying. The prospect of civil litigation for one who falls outside the areas in which legal aid can be obtained is simple ruin. This Parliament remains the only free point of complaint. We are dealing with democratic rights and freedoms which are very important. These issues cannot be lost sight of in the hurly-burly of day to day politics and abuse. In the politics of Australia in 1988 I would have thought that there was no more live issue in the community than this question of the coming together of the powerful in our community. This Government is based on an accord between itself and the trade union movement. It has established the closest possible links with big business. We are told that the appointment of Mr Young does not matter because the big businessmen concerned know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will take their calls. That is the context of bringing this matter forward. The ordinary men and women of Australia are entitled to ask where they fit into the system, where their rights are protected, where they stand when there is massive legal aid for public figures who need the assistance of the courts or need to be defended against law enforcement. The ordinary men and women of Australia feel that they are friendless, that they are alone and that they have no voice. It is for these reasons that this is a matter of very great importance. It is a matter of how we preserve the freedom of people in Australia to approach this Parliament without fear or favour against the competing rights of others who wish to suppress views that they feel are uncomfortable for them and who can afford to go to the law about it. That is a very significant question for determination. I am grateful that the Australian Democrats, in their consideration of this matter, have indicated that they will support the reference to the Committee. But I say to Labor senators opposite that this matter has to be dealt with on a basis which goes to the very real issues of substance. I have looked at the composition of the Privileges Committee and I hope that it would not be out of order to say that I believe-- Senator Robert Ray —I have not even done that. Senator CHANEY —I just want to say that I believe that what I am about to say is realistic, namely, that I would hope that on all sides of this chamber there would be an attempt to deal in a fair and proper way-and I am sure there will be-with the very important issues of principle which are raised by this matter. There is some current political content to this matter but I believe that that is subsidiary to the broad issues that have been raised. The Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) smiles. He knows that matters of privilege must be brought forward at the first available opportunity. That is a simple legal requirement on us. Senator Robert Ray —Preferably before two by-elections. Senator CHANEY —The Minister says, `Preferably before two by-elections'. Nobody on our side of the House tried to get Mr Burke to act in the way that he did. I believe that any attempt by the Government to slide out from that sort of matter on that basis is absolutely absurd. I commend this motion to the Senate. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(10.42) —A decision by the Senate to refer matters of privilege to the Privileges Committee should not follow automatically on the proposal of a motion by a senator. I believe that the Senate has an obligation to assess the facts of the case and to determine here and now whether or not the facts suggest the likelihood of a contempt. A referral shall only occur where a majority of senators are satisfied that contempt seems to have been committed. The facts, as I will outline them, should leave no doubt in even the most suspicious mind that no contempt was committed by Mr Burke. In fact, the most likely candidate for contempt is the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in his role and in the role of the Liberal Party of Australia in manufacturing this issue. Brian Burke is entirely blameless in this matter, as would be any citizen who used his democratic legal rights to defend himself against libels promoted by the Liberal Party. The petition in question is part of a pattern of smear and slander against Brian Burke. As a public figure, Brian Burke was subject to a vitriolic campaign of rumour and innuendo about his private life, none of which was true. It was all to do with Brian Burke's political dominance in Western Australia. Where it is taken that someone is so politically dominant, the only way to reduce that dominance is by a gutter campaign of non-source smears-a reliable old political tactic when someone is politically dominant. In my belief, what Senator Chaney needed to do here today was to establish that there is a prima facie case that there has been a breach of privilege. He has failed miserably to do that. I will go into a little more detail in regard to the facts of the case to determine whether this matter should go to the Privileges Committee. The facts are: a highly defamatory allegation against the Premier of Western Australia was circulated by Mr Strickland. The allegation that Mr Burke's appointment as Ambassador to Ireland had some connection with charges pending against Mr Brush and Mr Martin was circulated in the form of a petition to this Senate. Mr Burke's solicitors contacted Mr Strickland on Wednesday, 10 February. The solicitors advised Mr Strickland that they were instructed to issue a writ of summons against him with claims for defamation. Mr Burke's solicitors further suggested that a withdrawal of the circulation of the petition-note that-would be a mitigating factor in respect of damages. The following day-Thursday, 11 February-solicitors acting for Mr Strickland contacted Mr Burke's solicitors. The solicitors conveyed Mr Strickland's offer that he would withdraw the petition and not present it to Parliament. I stress that. That decision not to present the petition to Parliament was not a demand by Mr Burke or his solicitors; it was an offer made by Mr Strickland's solicitors. Senator Chaney —I think that is what one would call sophistry. Senator ROBERT RAY —No, it is not sophistry. There are two big issues that Senator Chaney has raised here-the protection of petitions coming to this Parliament, and defamation. He raised those issues and said that they were interrelated and hard to define. In terms of the defamation of Mr Burke, the withdrawal of that petition covered that angle. The non-presentation to this Parliament was an offer made by Mr Strickland's solicitors and not at the demand or request of Mr Burke's solicitors. Following some discussions between the two firms of solicitors, Mr Strickland's firm wrote on 17 February outlining a proposal to resolve the matter. The proposal had four elements: first, an apology and an undertaking; secondly, the collection and destruction of all copies of the petition; thirdly, costs of about $500; and fourthly, in return for the above, no defamation action by Mr Burke. The proposal was accepted by Mr Burke's solicitors on 24 February. Let me read to the Senate the apology and the undertaking, made by Mr Ronald MacKenzie Strickland: In January and February 1988 I circulated a petition addressed to the President and Members of the Senate. I now realise that the petition carried the imputation that the Premier, Brian Burke, was involved in some way in the matters giving rise to charges presently pending against Mr Len Brush and Mr Robert Martin, although I did not intend to so impute. I acknowledge that the imputation is completely unfounded and unreservedly withdraw any such imputation. I sincerely apologise to Mr Burke for any embarrassment or distress I may have caused. I undertake not to further circulate the petition or any similar petition regarding this matter. I also undertake not to present such a petition to the Federal or State Parliament. What is the status of the petition? I know that we can all quote sources, but I do so only in support of my case, not as absolute proof. In the fifth edition of Australian Senate Practice, Odgers states: It is the privilege of any individual or body of individuals in the community to petition Parliament to obtain redress of grievances, or to ask it not to do something that is contemplated. However, this privilege is not a parliamentary privilege before a petition is presented. Odgers goes on to say: A petition which has been ordered to be received by the Senate becomes a public document and is protected by absolute privilege. Thus, in terms of parliamentary privilege, this only applies from the moment the petition is received. The origins of petitioning of parliament are bound up with the origins of parliament itself and I acknowledge that petitions are a fundamental part of democracy. However, the compilation of petitions, like any other material outside parliament, should be subject to the laws of the land. In a democracy parliament is not the only means available to redress grievances. The Australian legal system also offers citizens means of achieving justice. Mr Burke exercised his proper rights through the legal system and a settlement of the matter was achieved to the satisfaction of both his and Mr Strickland's solicitors. Senator Chaney's motion attempts to set parliament against the due processes of law, which include legal bargaining. It also opens the door to the circulation of any libel in any form of documentation which may be intended for presentation to parliament at some indeterminate time in the future. In anyone's language this is an abuse of parliamentary privilege. This is the real issue at heart here. It is not simply a question of whether, in Senator Chaney's view, this matter comes into the category of defamation; it is the precedent that is being set for the future. If one says that whatever is contained in a document which is to be a petition is a privileged piece of information, one will open Pandora's box. If Senator Chaney is saying, `I can write any slander, any smear I like in any petition, I can circulate it for eight months without even bringing it to this Parliament yet it attracts privilege and protection and there is no other legal redress', that is a farce. I may circulate a petition in the Wollongong area about my friend and colleague Senator Michael Baume. A variety of smears have been made about him over the years. Does this mean that I can put information about anyone in a petition, run it right around Australia, and that person has no redress. One should think of the precedent that would be set. Senator Knowles —Why are you so sensitive about this? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Knowles, in her inimitable knock-on ruckman style, asks why I am sensitive. I do not have to be, but every other person in the community must be sensitive on this point. We have defamation and libel laws. In essence, Senator Chaney says that these do not apply to petitions to parliament. Imagine the Frankenstein monster that would be created if any petition that came to this Parliament could say whatever it wanted to about anyone. This is ultimately what Senator Chaney is saying. That is an outrageous proposition. If this became reality, politicians would be privileged because we can circulate petitions attacking other politicians and we have the right to come in here and defend ourselves. But, if people were to circulate petitions with slanders, smears, innuendos and lies about other citizens and we politicians said, `Well, we cannot interfere in the petition process-that is a parliamentary privilege going back forever', would we really be saying that those individuals should be crucified in this way? That is one of the major principles involved here. It is one that the Opposition laughs at and one which it, along with everyone else in the Australian community, would live to regret. On 25 February the Senate adopted a series of resolutions relating to privilege. Amongst them was one establishing the criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt. In summary, the Senate agreed to three criteria. First, the Senate's power should only be used where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct senators in the performance of their duties; secondly, the existence of any other remedy; and thirdly, whether the alleged contempt was knowingly committed, or whether there was any reasonable excuse. By all three criteria, the actions of Mr Burke and his solicitors do not constitute a contempt of privilege. On the first criterion, the Senate has in no way been obstructed in its duty-the living proof of that was read in here today at 10.05 a.m. Mr Strickland's solicitors volunteered the undertaking not to deliver the petition to the Senate for presentation. Senator Chaney —So you understand. Senator ROBERT RAY —Of course. I have spoken to Mr Burke's solicitors and, like most competent solicitors, they took notes of the conversation between the respective solicitors. Senator Chaney would realise that a good solicitor always takes notes. I would be very interested to see whether the notes of Mr Strickland's solicitor and Mr Burke's solicitor totally correspond. Those notes clearly show that the offer not to present the petition to Parliament was made by Mr Strickland's solicitors-he volunteered that undertaking. On the second criterion, another remedy obviously exists. Mr Strickland had the opportunity to take the matter to court. It was his decision not to do so. Senator Chaney claims that he could not afford it. I will refer to someone who probably could afford it in a moment! However, it is worth noting that he or anyone else who cares to make the same allegation can still today test the matter in court. Surely Senator Chaney can find someone in the Western Australian community with the money to make those statements and take the matter to court. We would then have a test case on it. On the third criterion, the exercise by a citizen of his legal rights must be, by anyone's standards, a reasonable excuse. This Parliament cannot be seen to undermine a citizen's rights to defend himself against scurrilous libels just because those libels have some tentative and hypothetical connection with the proceedings of parliament. Let us turn to what constitutes a real contempt of parliament. There is a rare case, apparently without precedent in Australia, in regard to this matter. Our parliamentary privilege derives from the House of Commons. The most useful reference is Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, which in the twentieth edition on page 147 refers to the `Abuse of the Rights to Petition'. In particular, it notes numerous old instances of contempt such as: . . . frivolously, vexatiously or maliciously submitting to either House a petition containing false, scandalous or groundless allegations against any person, whether a Member of such House or not, or contriving, promoting and prosecuting such petitions. If this matter is referred to the Privileges Committee, a number of questions really have to be asked. The first one that I would ask, and to which Senator Chaney has only briefly alluded, is: What is the role of the Liberal Party of Australia in promoting this petition? Is it an innocent bystander, merely correcting formal defects in a petition, or was it heavily involved in it? The Privileges Committee would have to look at that. The second thing is that we are not talking about a petition; we are talking about two petitions. There were two petitions-not one-circulated in regard to this. The first petition did not make reference to Mr Burke's appointment as Ambassador-designate to Ireland; the second petition did. I ask the question: Where was the change made? Was it made in Mr Peter Shack's office? According to journalists, it was. Journalists were informed that that was where the change to the petition was made. People from the other side earlier scoffed and said, `It is only a red herring that the Labor Party may allege Liberal Party involvement'. If it is not a case of just changing the formal defects of a petition to make sure that it contains the words `humbly pray', et cetera, but changing the genesis, the very wording and meaning of the petition-done with the help and assistance of Liberal Party members-the case no longer falls into the dimension or sort of argument of a poor battler being crushed by a brilliant apparatchik from Western Australia with all the money in the world. The Opposition's case starts to fall into a bit of disrepair when it may well be that the hardest question to determine is whether Mr Strickland was simply misled by the Liberal Party or just abused and used by the Liberal Party of Western Australia. Of course, I understand that today Senator Chaney has said to journalists that he would present any petition to this Parliament. But he also went on to say, `In this case I support the petition'. He said that to a journalist. He cannot divorce himself from the fact. Senator Chaney —I do not think I did, actually, but still. Senator ROBERT RAY —That was a direct quote that was used from a source that I have. Someone may be libelling Senator Chaney; someone may be defaming him. However, the fact is that he cannot simply come in here and say, `Well, I may not agree totally with the content of it'. He did not say that. He did not have the guts to come out and say it. Whether he agrees with the content or not, the fact is that he is on record elsewhere as having said that he also believes in the content of it. I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I quite often upset the Nuclear Disarmament Party and others by deflating them. But I find it just a marvellous coincidence that Mr Strickland happened to use the firm of Parker and Parker if he is just a battler with no real connection with the Liberal Party. That is the same firm that Mr Barry MacKinnon used on the same concurrent matter, with the same outcome. It is a firm in which Mr Harry Lodge, the State Treasurer of the Liberal Party, happens to be a senior partner. Of all the solicitors that the poor battler could have found, he went and found that fairly Liberal establishment firm. While I am on the subject of Mr MacKinnon, at one stage similar allegations were made. It is not just a case of one little battler suddenly getting the bright idea of putting a scurrilous petition around against Mr Burke. The Leader of the Western Australian Opposition was into the same thing. I will read his apology into the record, too, just to round it out. It stated: On the 19th March 1987 during the Channel 9 News, I made certain statements concerning loan agreement documents between the former head of the Superannuation Board, Len Brush, and a Perth businessman having been knowingly dated incorrectly. I went on to make the following statements: ``Did the Premier in fact have a part in negotiations that led to the documents being prepared after the date they were supposedly signed? What was his knowledge of the whole affair right from the beginning? I think he has got a lot to answer for.'' I did not intend to suggest that the Premier, Mr Burke, had knowledge of or was involved in the loan agreement documents being post-dated and I did not intend to suggest that the Premier had been involved in any impropriety concerning the loan agreement. I recognize that there is no foundation for any such allegations against the Premier. I sincerely apologise to the Premier, Mr Burke, for having made those comments. So there is another person-not impecunious like perhaps the little battler who circulated the petition-who could have batted on in courts but decided not to. It all fits into a pattern of an organised smear campaign against Mr Burke, who copped it for four years and did not respond with anything. But in the end, when those vile accusations, innuendos and rumours swept Perth-fuelled by we do not know who-Mr Burke got to a certain point and as a citizen said, `I have had enough. The next person who comes out publicly and slanders me I will hit with a writ. If they want to apologise and withdraw, that is as far as I will take the matter'. In some ways I oppose this matter going to the Privileges Committee on the basis that it sets a precedent that a prima facie case has not been established. But, if it does go ahead, I will not be bitterly disappointed. I look forward to Mr Strickland coming to give evidence. I hope he is truthful; I have no reason to believe otherwise. I want him to give evidence and I want questions to be asked. I will not be able to ask them because I am not on the Committee, but I hope someone will. I want to know what contact he had with the Liberal Party on this matter. I want to know what his contacts were with Senator Chaney. I want to know what his contacts were with Mr Peter Shack. I want to know who suggested that he go to the basically Liberal establishment firm of Parker and Parker. I want to know the answers to all of those questions. Senator Chaney —You should not be able to punish him for going to a firm of lawyers you don't like. You are a bully like the rest of them, Ray. That has now come out. Senator ROBERT RAY —There is no punishment going to it. Senator Chaney says that I am a bully. But what I do in politics is to front up to issues and go to them honestly. I do not put them behind some sanctimonious, pious principles in which I do not believe. That is Senator Chaney's style. If Senator Chaney wants to throw a bit of mud in Western Australia, he invents some pious principle and then reads from the Sydney Morning Herald and tries to muddy the waters on it, et cetera. That is his style. He has no guts to confront issues straight up. He always wrings his hands and says, `I am terribly sorry to raise these matters; it hurts me more than it hurts you'. Very piously, he says, `Mr President, this is a matter of major principle'. Then he gets out the knife and stiletto and gradually sticks it in. That is the Chaney style, which is very well known. He is always dressed up on principle but really he is no different from me. If it comes to gutter fighting in politics, he will get into the dirt and throw the mud. The difference is that I do it straight up and honestly; he does it behind a cloak of sanctimonious principle. That is the essence of Senator Chaney. That is why, although he is named as Leader of the Opposition on his door, out in the corridor he leads no one because everyone behind him knows his style. I will just summarise and go over once again the issues involved here. For an issue to be referred to the Privileges Committee, I think we all should agree that there should be some prima facie case. We can all disagree today on whether a prima facie case has been established. Senator Chaney alleges that it has been; I allege that it has not. That is an important principle to state. No matter should automatically go to the Privileges Committee because a senator raises it. The second issue involved here relates to a precedent that we may set. But that in any event will not be set in this debate. If the matter goes to the Privileges Committee, it will be set by the Privileges Committee. But it cannot go unstated here, and I for once will honestly get out of the political mode of a party loyalist and say this, that there is a serious question, leaving aside the Burke matter, of whether we establish a principle that anything can be put into a petition and thereby be protected. What we have to remember is that petitions have changed in their nature. Originally they were a means by which a citizen got redress in the Parliament. We all know that nowadays that applies to only 2 to 4 per cent of petitions. Most are serialised versions meant for political ends-to get publicity for generating support for an issue. The very nature of petitions has changed. I will not support adding a further dimension, given the change that has occurred, whereby any libel, any canard, can be attached to a petition-leaving aside this case-and a person can say anything about anyone else and automatically attract privilege. I think that that extends this Parliament's power to far too privileged a position. This does not apply to members of parliament only. Senator Chaney and others say, `What are you frightened about?'. I am not frightened about anything. As a member of parliament, I have a right of response. If someone-say, Senator Puplick-puts out a petition against me, I can get up in this place and we can have a blue about it. That does not worry me. What does worry me is if petitions are put out about another citizen which contain allegations amounting to lies, smears or defamation. The Opposition is saying that a person cannot take such a matter to the courts to get a remedy? It is crazy if it wants to invoke that system of privilege in this country. It represents a complete change to the traditions and privileges of parliaments throughout the world. That is worth thinking about. My third point, I believe, is a very strong one. Even if we ignore all the other points, the case really hinges on how the petition did not get to this Parliament. That is an interesting question. I have said, and I am sure of the facts, that Mr Burke's solicitors asked for the petition to be withdrawn from circulation because it was in that essence that the defamation occurred. They did not ask for it not to be presented to this Parliament. As part of the settlement, that offer was made by Mr Strickland's solicitors. We cannot criticise Mr Burke for accepting that. After all, it was part of the offer of settlement. Obviously it was made in the hope of getting a settlement. That settlement has been achieved. Mr Strickland has apologised. Senator Chaney seemed to be imputing that the motive for the apology and the withdrawal was lack of means. I cannot establish whether that is true or not. I can only take the apology on its face value-that it is a withdrawal of the imputations in the petition. That is the same type of matter, but is not strictly related to it, as Mr MacKinnon's withdrawal of similar allegations. As I described earlier, two by-elections are coming up on the weekend. This is an attempt by the Liberal Party, mostly from Western Australia, to stir up this issue, to throw a bit of mud, under the cloak of principle. I am used to that type of sanctimonious performance by Senator Chaney. It fits his style. It does not mean that we on this side have to cop it. Every time we stand up for ourselves we are accused of being bully boys. We are accused of not being interested in principle. I suggest that Senator Chaney go home, try to establish the principles of this case and come to a realisation that there are conflicting principles of major-- Senator Chaney —That is what I said in my speech. Senator ROBERT RAY —That is what Senator Chaney said in his speech, but he does not understand it or practise it. That is the problem with Senator Chaney's dichotomy. What he espouses and the way in which he behaves are two entirely different things. I do no know whether he suffers from some kind of schizophrenia. I wonder whether he ever looks in the mirror and tries to resolve those matters. This is just political opportunism under the cloak of political principles. It backfires when one cuts away the layers of political opportunism, because no principle is involved. It is sad to say that I am not only right in terms of exposing Senator Chaney's political opportunism but also in terms of principle. A citizen has a right to protect his reputation by way of legal proceedings. If that is not right, I wonder whether Senator Chaney intends to change the defamation and libel laws. He did not do so when he was in government from 1975 to 1983. In summary and in conclusion: matters of principle are involved in this case which, if it goes to the Privileges Committee, must be considered. Just to satisfy some revengeful feelings of Western Australian Liberals is not a good enough reason for us to set up a precedent for the future that every Australian citizen will regret. I know the angst, the jealousy and the intense hatred that have built up in the Western Australian Liberal Party in respect of Brian Burke. I know that this hatred exists. It is similar to that which existed for Wran, except, for some reason, Western Australians are always more intense about these matters. They have attempted again to get Burke. I guess the greatest crime Brian Burke ever committed was to leave Parliament before the Liberal Party could get him in three, five, 10, 15 or 20 years time-whenever it thought it could get him. He has rubbed the Liberals' nose in it, destroying one of the citadels of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, exposing its every policy and threatening its very existence. What we have seen today from the start is a petty exercise of revenge and it has failed miserably. I am sure that whenever the matter is concluded, Mr Brian Burke will come out totally exonerated. Not one charge or allegation made by the Opposition today can be sustained. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.11) —The motion to which the Senate is addressing itself reads: That the following questions be referred to the Committee of Privileges: Whether a petition to the Senate was suppressed in consequence of a threat of legal proceedings by the Hon. Brian Burke, and, if so, whether this constituted a contempt of Parliament. We will support the motion; that is, that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. For the last hour we have listened to a couple of speeches rehearsing a whole range of issues concerned with this matter. I do not wish to follow those because it seems to me that what we are asking the Committee of Privileges to do is to go over that particular operation and to come forward with a report to this Parliament. I remind honourable senators that the Committee of Privileges does not decide anything; it merely reports back to this chamber. A final decision will be made here. I wish to rehearse why we support the motion. Senator Ray is perfectly correct, in that every matter that is brought before the chamber does not have to be supported. If it did, we would not have had to engage in an earlier exercise; that is, the resolutions of 25 February. The hope is that the resolutions will sift out trivial matters. It is important to note that this is the first item on which we have asked the Presiding Officer to make some type of judgment regarding the resolutions of 25 February. I do not know whether all honourable senators are aware of the fairly long history of this exercise. It goes back to the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which was appointed under the Fraser Administration, I think, towards the end of 1981. The matter has a very long history. It culminated in both an Act of the Parliament and resolutions of the Senate and, hopefully, the House of Representatives. We have attempted to tease out a number of these issues in order to streamline the operation and make sure that what we are about is up to date and has built in protections not only for members of parliament but also for citizens. We asked the President to address himself to a number of issues-in deciding whether or not he would give precedence to the motion. He decided to do so. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that, in considering whether the Senate should send this matter on, the Senate is asked to address itself to almost identical propositions. In our case we have three criteria. In the case of the President, there are two criteria. The President's two criteria are repeated in the three criteria to which we must address ourselves. The third criterion with which we must concern ourselves is: 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. I believe that it is important for the Senate, in addressing itself to this issue for the first time, to be very careful. I think it is a pity that this is a contested matter. I think for two reasons it would be more appropriate for the matter to be sent uncontested to the Committee of Privileges. The first reason is that we would thereby give added weight to the very difficult type of decision that the Presiding Officer is called upon to make with regard to this matter. Honourable senators quite knowingly gave the Presiding Officer that very difficult task of working out whether this was a matter that should take precedence or whether it was a trivial matter or otherwise that should not actually be raised. I think it is important that on this first occasion we should give that, as it were, implicit support to the Presiding Officer in terms of the judgment he made that it was a matter of importance that should be dealt with by the Senate. By the way, I do not wish to imply that the President in any way made a decision as to whether the Senate in its consideration should then send the matter on. The second matter is one which I think was raised by Senator Ray. Interestingly enough, we have come to the opposite conclusion for almost identical reasons. We believe that the matter ought to be decided very clearly. The Parliament does not have a motion before it to enable the matter to be decided. I thought that Senator Ray raised very important considerations about defamation, libel and petitions. The motion we have before us does not allow us in any way to decide those matters. The motion before us is whether the matter should go off to the Committee of Privileges. For the reasons that Senator Ray raised the Australian Democrats have decided that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges so that we can have a report back and a motion aimed quite directly at the issue of petitions. I want to address something in this regard to Senator Chaney and put it even more pointedly. If a petition were circulated about, for example, the private sex life or something like that of Senator Chaney, I am quite sure that Senator Chaney would take umbrage. Knowing the position he has taken with regard to family life and other matters I know that he would want to take his legal rights to the court with regard to the circulation of that type of petition. He would not want every person in the community running around with a piece of paper listing all those types of allegations and suggesting that as a result of all of the things which Senator Chaney had done-they would not be allegations but statements that he had done them-he should be expelled from the Parliament. That seems to me to be a very serious proposition. It has been raised here. Senator Chaney —I did raise that conflict in my speech. Senator MACKLIN —I know. I have absolutely no problem with Brian Burke taking his legal rights. Senator Chaney raised the problems of the cost of justice and whatever else. That is fine. We have had a continual concern with the cost of justice. We think that further work needs to be done in this area and that we need to look very closely at the problem citizens have in getting redress before the courts. However, I think it is very odd to continue that idea but then criticise someone for taking his legal rights. I really do not believe that as a result of a failure of the system in terms of being able to support people with money for legal aid we should then turn the whole thing on its head and criticise somebody who takes his rights in that regard. The criticism should be of the system that does not enable people to defend themselves because it does not give them the wherewithal to defend themselves. Somebody should not be criticised merely for asserting his legal rights. I think that Burke is now in a somewhat different situation. I am not at all sure of the chronology of events. I do not want to enter into that; I have enough problems in Queensland without working out the Western Australian political system. Undoubtedly it is now the case that Mr Brian Burke is a private citizen. Senator Robert Ray —He is an ambassador. Senator MACKLIN —He is an ambassador but he is not a political figure. I do not see why anyone in such a situation should be in any way inhibited from taking any legal action. We might think that politicians should be inhibited. It is a prohibition we might urge on ourselves. However, I really do not believe we have the right to urge it on anybody else including, quite frankly, other politicians. If they wish to have recourse to law they have a perfect right as politicians to do so. I think that such action might show that they are thin skinned. I might urge that as a counsel of recommendation to myself but I do not think I am entitled to urge it on somebody else and certainly not somebody who has removed himself from the active political arena. I think that he is perfectly entitled to use whatever is available to him if he feels affronted and to take his rights before the courts. I assume that the apologies given were given in good faith. Hence, I assume that the people involved have actually apologised. The other items raised by Senator Chaney undoubtedly will become part of the whole discussion before the Privileges Committee. However, the reason I wish to reiterate that we are supporting the examination of this particular item by the Privileges Committee is that we wish to vote on a motion in regard to petitions-a motion that quite specifically addresses the issue of whether a petition that is circulated that is defamatory is covered by parliamentary privilege. I want to vote on such a matter. I am not about to express my personal opinion now because I would like to hear the Committee's report. However, I really believe that this chamber should be given the opportunity to vote quite directly on that matter. That is why we are supporting this matter going before the Privileges Committee-so it can work over the whole matter in detail and come back to us with recommendations. Those recommendations will then be the subject of a vote in this chamber. Hopefully, it will clear the matter up once and for all. It is for that reason-not for being either in support of or against Mr Burke, the petitioners or anybody else-that we want to have this matter worked out because it is, I think, in the tradition we have accepted in the last two or three years of getting some detailed clarification, both for ourselves and for the community, of what quite precisely we are dealing with in regard to parliamentary privilege. I think this is a useful inquiry and a useful development. I am quite sure that it will be a useful report, as will the vote. As well, it will enhance our understanding of the privileges of this place and will enhance the understanding of the citizens of Australia. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(11.24) —Perhaps I ought to begin by indicating that I am listed as being a member of the Committee of Privileges. I understood that Senator Childs was to be a member and that I was not. I should say to the Senate that I have prepared material in regard to this matter and, therefore, had I remained on the Privileges Committee for this case I could not have brought an unbiased mind to it. I begin my address on this matter in those circumstances. I indicate that I will not remain on the Privileges Committee for the examination of this matter because of the way my mind has already been affected. I did not realise that I was listed to be on the Committee because the arrangement was that Senator Giles would take my place and become Chairperson of the Committee. That was my understanding. Senator Macklin —What is the circumstance now, Senator? Senator COONEY —I will not be sitting on the Privileges Committee. Indeed, it is only proper for me to tell the Senate that because if I had not told the Senate and gone ahead and sat on the Committee I do not think that I could have brought an unbiased mind to the matter. I have prepared a case to put before the Senate today on the basis that I am not a member of the Privileges Committee. I have some concern with the matter which perhaps I should go ahead and explain. Of the speeches given so far by honourable senators, the speech given by Senator Macklin, for whom I have the greatest respect, is the speech which gives me great concern. As I understand his proposition, he is saying that this is a case that we ought to let go to the Privileges Committee and that we ought to discuss in the Senate because it is time that we established a precedent for the way in which petitions are handled. If I may say so with respect, it seems to me to be wrong for people to be dragged before the Privileges Committee of this Senate and for their future to be debated by the Senate simply for the purpose of establishing a precedent-simply so that in the future the procedure for dealing with petitions that are presented to the Senate will have been established. The fact is that under the Parliamentary Privi-leges Act 1987 a person who is charged, as it were, with an offence against this House may be imprisoned, if the Senate considers it proper, for six months. It seems to me to be a most draconian practice to have somebody brought before this House, brought before the Privileges Committee and charged, as it were, with contempt, or at least put at risk of being so charged, simply to establish a precedent so that in the future this House will know how to deal with petitions. I think that is a most merciless and most unfair way of going about things. I am sure that Senator Macklin and the Australian Democrats did not intend that their approach to this matter would have that effect; but, indeed, that would be the effect of what he proposes. What he said is that persons-in this case it is a former Premier of Western Australia-should be put at risk of being put in prison by this House simply to establish the procedure that this House should adopt in dealing with petitions that come before the Senate. I think that is a very base motive. I can well understand the Privileges Committee talking about practices that should guide this House, without somebody being put at risk of attracting a gaol sentence. That is done again and again. However, to put at risk the liberty of a subject of this country simply to establish the proper procedures for this House to adopt as regards privilege is a very heartless and very dangerous precedent to set. I turn now to the Opposition's case. The letter sent by Senator Chaney to the President bears the date stamp of 11 March 1988. The letter reads in part: The matter arises from the circulation of a petition in Western Australia requesting deferral of the appointment of the Honourable Brian Burke as Australian Ambassador to Ireland pending resolution of forthco-ming legal proceedings involving the former chairman of the State Superannuation Board and a Perth businessman. That letter does not correctly set out the position taken by the petition and it does not correctly state the position that Senator Chaney put forward and supported today. The petition wants the appointment of Brian Burke deferred not only until any relevant legal cases that might arise have been dealt with but also until the Western Australian Parliament deems it time it should discharge the matter from its consideration. The petition reads: Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should seek to have the appointment of the Hon. Brian Burke as our Ambassador to Ireland deferred until such time as the charges presently pending against Mr Len Brush and Mr Robert Martin shall have been heard and concluded, and until matters arising therefrom shall have been answered to the satisfaction of both Houses of the Parliament of Western Australia. This petition does not purport to vindicate the right of somebody to present a reasonable petition. The petition does not simply ask for the postponement of the appointment of Brian Burke as Ambassador to Ireland pending the outcome of legal proceedings; it goes further than that. The letter that Senator Chaney sent to the President does not make clear the full intent of the petition. I do not suggest for one minute that Senator Chaney has intentionally tried to mislead anyone, but certainly the letter that he sent to the President does not go on to state that the petition seeks to have Mr Burke's appointment as Ambassador deferred until the Houses of Parliament in Perth are satisfied that it is appropriate for him to take up that appointment. Senator Chaney's letter does not point that out. It is a ridiculous suggestion that the taking up of the appointment of an Ambassador should depend upon the whim of State Houses of Parliament. State parliaments have nothing to do with the appointment of ambassadors; they have nothing to do with external affairs; for that matter, neither does this Parliament have anything to do with an ambassador taking up an appointment. This petition asks this House to do something that it cannot do; that is, to delay the appointment of the Hon. Brian Burke as Ambassador to Ireland. Such matters are within the jurisdiction of the Executive, and only within the jurisdiction of the Executive. I say with respect that, first of all, this petition is a nonsense petition because it asks the Senate to do something it cannot do. Why would a petition be circulated asking this House to do something that it cannot do? My suggestion is that the purpose of circulating that petition around the streets of Perth was to blackguard Brian Burke. Let us be quite clear that this is a matter of libel. Is that the true purpose of taking this petition around the streets of Perth? The petition can have no other effect because, as I say, this Parliament cannot affect the appointment of a person as ambassador and when such a person takes up his position. Senator Chaney's letter to the President went on to state: This petition was circulated at the instigation of a citizen who sought advice from the Liberal Party who, in turn, contacted my office about the way in which the petition might be phrased to ensure it complied with Standing Orders. Although that is what Senator Chaney said in his letter, he said in the Senate, `Look, when I put that in I did not mean to suggest for one minute that I in any way instigated this petition, that I in any way prompted its circulation. I simply gave advice'. If it were a criminal offence to circulate this petition, certainly Senator Chaney would be guilty of aiding and abetting. For Senator Chaney to say in the Senate that he is quite removed, as it were, from what happened with the petition is, I think, to miss the real thrust of what the petition is about. There is no doubt that this is a libellous matter. Libel actions can be defended, first, by showing that the words claimed to be libellous are true. It has not been suggested in the Senate today that the inferences in the petition are in any way true. Another way of defending a libel action is to say that the matter has absolute privilege because it was carried out under legal privilege or parliamentary privilege. Those are the ways in which libel actions can be defended. But the whole system has been twisted around in this case: Instead of Parliamentary privilege being put forward as a defence, it has been turned into a means of attack. As I say, a breach of privilege can attract a gaol sentence. Suddenly it has become an offence-this point was made by Senator Ray-subject to the imposition of a custodial sentence, for a person to defend himself against a libellous attack. The question arises-this has been asked-as to whether taking legal action to vindicate one's character is a breach of the privileges of parliament. That is the issue. Let us say, for example, that somebody in Perth had circulated a petition which was as libellous as this against somebody who lived in Adelaide and that person took action in the High Court, as he is entitled to do, and as soon as he took action in the High Court, he is told `You cannot go on with this action because it is a breach of parliamentary privilege'. What is to stop the High Court from saying, `There is such a thing as separation of powers. Members of parliament have committed a contempt of the High Court because they have stopped the processes of the High Court'? Those are the sorts of problems involved in the debate today. Somebody talked about Gee's case. To compare Gee's case in any way with what is happening here is nonsense. Gee's case is certainly not a precedent for what is happening here. If honourable senators had looked at the report of that case in the journals of the House of Commons rather than reading a short summary of it in Erskine May, they would have seen that the situation is quite different. In that case the person was alleged to have taken bribes and to have acted arbitrarily in his position as a commissioner for licensing and regulating hackney-carriages. When people approached Parliament with petitions complaining about that, he had them arrested. Parliament said, `You cannot treat people who approach Parliament to seek relief in that manner'. Of course, this Parliament would be outraged if someone approached it with a petition against corruption and the person involved used his official position to have the petitioner arrested. But that is entirely different from a person taking the legal processes otherwise available to him. If people are going to suggest that Parliament can override the processes of law, that is entirely different from a situation where a person does not have someone arrested for approaching Parliament and trying to stop bribery and corruption but has said, `This is libellous. I want to stop it, and I intend to take legal action'. If the person was confident that he was correct and that what he set out in the petition was right, why did he not go on with the petition? A defence to libel is truth. If the person who was circulating this document really believed that it was true, why did he withdraw, apparently on the advice of his own solicitors, when the solicitors acting for Mr Burke approached him? That question has to be answered. What do we do? Do we say, `We will send Mr Burke off to the Privileges Committee for approaching his solicitor for legal advice'? He is a man who has been clearly libelled. Everybody agrees that he has been libelled. Senator Chaney —I don't agree with that. Senator COONEY —Senator Chaney does not agree that he has been libelled but the solicitors to whom he went agreed that he had been libelled. Senator Chaney —Hang on. How do you know that? Senator COONEY —Because an apology has been made, as I understand it, pursuant to an agreement. Senator Chaney —That is an absurd conclusion for a lawyer to draw. Senator COONEY —An agreement has been reached. Let us just analyse Senator Chaney's approach to this. He says that he does not think it is libellous. I have said to Senator Chaney that I believe it is libellous because the solicitors on both sides of the case agreed that it was libellous and came to a settlement. Senator Chaney —Rubbish. They agreed to avoid proceedings. Senator COONEY —Senator Chaney says that they did not agree to come to a settlement because it was libellous; they agreed to come to a settlement to avoid legal proceedings. What sort of solicitor would advise people who came to him for advice when sued for libel to come to a settlement simply to avoid legal proceedings? What a lot of nonsense. Senator Chaney knows that it is a lot of nonsense. If there is no colour of libel in that statement, that solicitor has failed in his duty to his client in agreeing to a settlement. Senator Macklin —What a shocking defamatory thing to say about a lawyer, Senator. Senator COONEY —That is the situation. Action was not taken to prevent this petition from being presented. That was not the position at all. Action was taken to stop the libel that had been committed. The Senate's action today has extended the parliamentary privilege that adheres to members speaking in this chamber to people speaking outside this chamber. If anybody here makes outside this Parliament a libellous statement about anybody else, he can be sued. The privilege that Opposition senators are trying to attach to a petitioner is a privilege which members of parliament do not enjoy. So the petitioner's privilege rises above the privilege of members of parliament because the petitioner can go around libelling anybody he likes outside as long as he attaches it to a document with particular words in it, but a member of parliament cannot go outside this Parliament and libel people. So why does this chamber seek to elevate the privilege which attaches to a petitioner above the privilege that attaches to a member of parliament? The more we look at this whole process, the more ridiculous it becomes. Senator Chaney, in his letter, talks about the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects parliamentarians and the parliamentary processes. It does not purport to protect the rights of libellers even if they put that libel in a petition. That is what Opposition senators are doing. A libel has been committed. There has been a twisting of the precedents of this House and a twisting of the law to attach privileges to somebody who wants to blackguard a former Premier of Western Australia. Senator Chaney goes on in his letter: Any lingering doubts about this matter would appear to have been resolved by the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act (No. 21 of 1987) and in particular Section 16, subsections 2 (b), (c) and (d) of that Act. I have read that provision. There is nothing in section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 which gives protection to people who libel others, whether in a petition or otherwise, outside Parliament. The Act protects evidence that is before a parliament or a parliamentary committee. No part of section 16 gives protection to a libeller of people outside Parliament. So it is a nonsense for Senator Chaney to write this in his letter: It is my very strong view that the action taken by the former Premier is in breach of the right of citizens to circulate petitions for presentation to the Parliament. Any lingering doubts about this matter would appear to have been resolved by the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act . . . and in particular section 16, subsections 2 (b) (c) and (d) of that Act. Senator Chaney either does not know his law or is writing in a way which gives a false impression. He also states in his letter: It is also my view that the Senate must be very ready to defend the availability of recourse to the Parliament by citizens of modest means against infringement by those who are comparatively rich and powerful. I do not believe that anybody should be denied recourse to his member of parliament. That is why members, at least on our side of the House, have their electoral offices and are available for people to come and see them. If, on the other hand, what is meant is that people should be able to present petitions to Parliament, and should be able to say what they like in those petitions without being subject to the law, that is another matter. What Senator Chaney says is that people who present petitions should be privileged above every other citizen in the community. If someone wrote a letter to a newspaper setting out what is contained in the petition, or if someone said that on the radio, no privilege would attach. What I should like to hear from Senator Chaney is why he is interested in protecting people who circulate libellous petitions, but has no interest at all in protecting people who circulate letters or commit other forms of libel less serious than that involved here. Why should he favour one particular process rather than another? Perhaps what was envisaged in this particular case was that the matter would be raised in Parliament and made the subject of debate, and that the very purpose that Brian Burke had in taking action would be frustrated, namely, that the libel be put to rest. It is quite a tragedy-I have chosen to use that word-that this matter should be referred, as it appears it will be on the numbers, to the Privileges Committee. I repeat that I believe it is quite wrong of the Democrats to put at risk-and that is what the Democrats quite clearly are doing-the liberty of people simply to set a precedent. This is what has been stated. It is quite wrong to make people subject to the risk of imprisonment or fines simply to establish precedent. That certainly shows no proper concern for the rights of citizens. Simply because a man has been the Premier of a State does not make him any less vulnerable to the anxieties, worries and concerns that he would have if he were subjected to this Committee and perhaps ultimately to the Senate. Nevertheless, if we are to have some interesting lines about privilege put in the books by the Democrats, so be it. I believe that the approach taken by the Opposition, particularly the Liberal Party, is extraordinary. The letter from Senator Chaney states only half of the situation. It gives the wrong impression of what the petition really asked for. It failed to state the full extent of the petition. I should like Senator Chaney to say in reply why he did not do that; why the letter he wrote to the President failed to set out the full extent of the petition; and why it did not mention that the petition sought to delay the appointment until both Houses of the Western Australian Parliament were satisfied. I ask Senator Chaney why he quoted section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act in a context where it has no proper application at all. Section 16 clearly relates to matters which have come before this Parliament or its committees, such as evidence given before those bodies. It is quite wrong to say that it provides otherwise. The letter refers to a legal settlement since concluded with the former Premier on conditions that included collection and destruction of petition forms. There is no evidence at all that there was any agreement that the forms were to be destroyed. I call upon Senator Chaney to show where there was any agreement that the petition was to be destroyed. The letter also misrepresents the petition in so far as it says: It is also my view that the Senate must be very ready to defend the availability of recourse to the Parliament by citizens of modest means against infringement by those who are comparatively rich and powerful. I ask Senator Chaney why he chooses a particular class of libellers to protect against the rest of the community. I ask him to explain in what way the Senate can in any way affect the appointment of ambassadors. I ask him to explain how this Parliament can stop the recourse to law by people who wish to vindicate any rights that they believe they have. That would be the effect of his argument because if one objects to the threat of legal action, one must object to legal action itself. I ask Senator Chaney to explain what the situation would be with people living in different States if one libelled another, and the person libelled brought an action in the High Court. Could this Parliament stop the High Court hearing that case on the basis that there was a breach of privilege? Further, might it not be argued that the High Court had power to punish for contempt those who attempted to frustrate its processes by resorting to parliamentary processes? The Opposition sits peacefully by, stopping a man resorting to what should be the right of every person in this country: to go to a court of law to have the umpire decide whether he is right or wrong. This is almost getting back to the sorts of things that used to occur with the bill of attachment. Before I conclude I should like to make clear that the Democrats, the Liberal Party and the National Party have combined here today to use their numbers to stop a person who has been grievously libelled from doing what everybody in this country should be entitled to do-to attempt to vindicate his character before the courts and either win or lose. That is what the Opposition has done. Senator Haines —The senator knows that that is not true. Senator COONEY —From now on anyone who is libelled in a petition and dares to contradict or protest about what has been put in a petition will be brought before the Senate and made subject to the risk of imprisonment or being fined. Senator Haines —The senator knows that that is not right. Senator COONEY —That is exactly what has been done. If not, I invite Senator Haines to explain how it is otherwise. It is no good protesting and saying that has not been done, because clearly the Opposition has done it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(11.54) —I am quite sure that none of the motives or purposes that, with the greatest respect, Senator Cooney attributed to the Democrats are in fact correct. I indicate to the Senate that I intend to move an amendment to the motion before the Chair. I shall do so because this is one of those rare occasions-perhaps too rare-when debate in the chamber has actually influenced the course of a matter under consideration. I was extremely unhappy about the original wording of the motion, but on the other hand was totally persuaded by Senator Macklin's comments, which I support, that the question of privilege raised by the motion with the removal of personal references should be referred on principle to the Committee for some determination. Once again I believe that the entire matter of parliamentary privilege requires further extensive overhaul. Though I shall not do so, one could be unkind enough to suggest that perhaps the circumstances under which the original motion before the Chair evolved could at least in the moral sense constitute some abuse of privilege. However, I do not suggest that. The whole question of privilege does need to be examined. Privilege, in my view, has been brought into considerable contempt-I use the word `contempt' in its simple English meaning-by the Parliament itself on a number of occasions over the years, which, of course, has resulted in a great deal of debate on the subject. The most infamous case was that in 1955 when both the publisher of a newspaper and the journalist who wrote a particular article were imprisoned in Goulburn gaol for a period of three months and served out every day of their sentences. I noted when I read the transcript of that matter that a very young and new member of the then Opposition, by the name of E. G. Whitlam-a man I respect enormously-voted in favour of those prison sentences being imposed. I intend one day to ask Gough why he did that. Senator Puplick —Have a look in Souter's book. Senator COLLINS —It is in Souter's book, is it? Senator Robert Ray —You never met Frank Browne; that is obvious. He was a grub. Senator COLLINS —I never met him, but I am perfectly prepared to say on the evidence before me that he was a grub and a scurrilous person. But I do not think that people who are grubs should be sent to gaol. There would be a lot of us in deep trouble if that were the case. Having been persuaded by Senator Macklin that this matter should be looked at, I drafted the amendment with that in mind, to remove the personal references from the motion. I point out to members of the Senate that the whole question of privilege has been examined by the relevant committee of the Constitutional Commission inquiring into potential amendments to the Australian Constitution. One of the recommendations of that committee is that consideration should be given to overhauling the entire question of parliamentary privilege and having its limits defined in very precise terms in the Australian Constitution. That is a proposition with which I concur, the extent of my concurrence being with the need to examine the possibility of having a constitutional amendment defining precisely the limits of parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege will remain a respectable institution only if it is accorded respect and not abused by the members of parliament upon whom it is conferred. I think I would have a fair amount of support in saying that the infamous case of Fitzpatrick in 1955 in the House of Representatives was one in which privilege was abused by the Parliament and extended in a way that I hope will never be done again. The amendment is self-explanatory. I move: Leave out all words after `Committee of Privileges', insert `whether the circulation of a petition containing defamatory material for the purpose of gaining signatures and subsequent submission to the Senate is or ought to be privileged and how such issues should be determined and in what forum'. I point out to honourable senators that I included the words `defamatory material' in this amendment at the suggestion of the Australian Democrats. The final words, which I support, as to the question of how such issues should be determined and in what forum, were included at the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. I think it is a proper reference to make. Senator Puplick —Who is going to determine first whether the material is defamatory? Senator COLLINS —I will get onto that now. I had some concerns, and I think Senator Chaney was a party to my voicing them, about the inclusion of the words `defamatory material' because of that very question. I must say that, had I been left to my druthers, I druther have left the wording in the original form, which simply read, `whether the circulation of a petition for the purpose of gaining signatures' so that the question of principle could be resolved. But because I am seeking the support of the Senate for this proposition, and because I am a reasonable man, I acceded to the suggestion. To answer Senator Puplick's question as to whether the petition contained defamatory material, that would be put beyond doubt if, subsequent to the circulation of the petition, the matter were determined in a court of law and the court came down with a judgment that the material complained of-I imagine that a complaint would have to be lodged in that circumstance-was in fact defamatory. But I would not rule out the possibility of the Senate itself, as it obviously has the power to do at any time, taking exception to the material or, having had brought to its attention an allegation concerning possible defamatory material, referring the matter on its own motion to the Committee of Privileges. In that instance that determination could be made by the Senate, not acting as a court of law but simply indicating that there was a prima-facie case that the material was defamatory. Those are the two circumstances in which I would envisage such a determination could be made in a legal and a definitive sense by a court of law, should action be taken. I totally support Senator Macklin's comment, as I am sure every honourable senator in this chamber would, that under no circumstances should this Parliament seek, by exercising privilege-which I think would be a gross abuse of privilege-to prevent someone who was grossly defamed by a petition from taking the legal action that is his right. I was alarmed in the true sense of the word by the wording of the original motion that came before this House. In a way I am glad that this matter has been raised, because it is one that should be looked at. I again advise honourable senators who are interested in this whole question of privilege, as all members of parliament should be, to refer to the suggestions of the committee of the Constitutional Commission on enshrining limits to the powers of privilege by amendment to the Constitution. It is probably appropriate that we look at that. I would be absolutely alarmed and horrified to think that a grossly defamatory statement affecting a person's credit and standing in the community could be written on a piece of paper, topped and tailed with the appropriate prayer and, set out in the proper order and form of a petition, laid on the counter of every store and public place in the community. Thousands of copies could be printed and circulated for 12 months, it could be grossly damaging to a person's credibility but, because it is in the correct form of a petition, it could be covered by parliamentary privilege. No legal redress would, therefore, be available to the person defamed. I refer again to the point that I thought was made very succinctly by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, when he said that such a petition could refer to people who are not members of parliament and who have absolutely no personal right of redress in parliament to put the record straight. If the document were covered by privilege, such a person would have no legal redress, in contrast to a case of a normal defamatory statement being printed. It is indeed a moot point. I for one am pleased that it is to be examined by the Committee of Privileges. I make no bones about stating the manner in which I think it should be resolved, not in the particular case involved but in terms of principle. We are all familiar with the gossip that goes around about people in public life, and it is appalling to think that anyone could seriously put forward the view that I could draft the most libellous suggestions about a member of parliament, saying for example that that person was a sexual deviate and that on those grounds, as a member of the `moral majority' organisation, I was seeking the assistance of members of parliament to expel that person from the Parliament, as the Parliament has the power to do. I could then go on, under the situation that perhaps some people in the course of this debate have suggested might be possible, to describe in graphic detail the extent, purpose and type of sexual deviancy that was involved. I think it would be an appalling proposition if that person were prevented from taking the legal action that would, under any other circumstance, be available to him because I had topped and tailed that garbage and nonsense and presented it in the correct form as a petition. In closing, I take on board the concern that Senator Cooney expressed-and I think this is a proper concern-about whether we should be using people as sacrificial lambs simply to establish for our convenience and, I think, frankly, for the good of the community a precedent as to how this matter should be determined. I do not think that is proper or principled. Therefore, I think the form of words taking out the personal references in the original motion is the acceptable form that should be used. However, I wish to make it absolutely clear-I have taken advice on this and I believe that advice to be correct-that the removal of personal references would not preclude in any sense whatever the Committee, of its own motion, choosing to have brought before it people who may well be concerned with the case in point. This is simply a matter of principle that has to be determined. In fact, let me say, for what it is worth, that if I were a member of the Committee, it would make eminent sense to me in terms of examining some topical material to examine the particular case that has been brought before the Senate. Senator Haines —Are you saying, Senator, that in the event of their not bringing this case before them for consideration, you would use the procedures of this place to ensure that they did? Senator COLLINS —No. I thought I was putting it much more moderately than that and I am sorry that what I said has been misunderstood. I would not force anyone into doing it. I say it again: if I were a member of the Committee, I would simply think it a matter of commonsense that in terms of-- Senator Haines —This place could, if it chose to ignore the specific case and the principles as well as the principles involved, direct the Committee to take it on board. Senator COLLINS —I agree with that. The Senate has the power to give directions to any of its committees at any time it wishes and nothing can interfere with that. I am saying that if one were having a look at the cases that lay under this reference, it would obviously be sensible to have a look at the one that was most topical. The Committee could decide that it wants to do that. The Committee is not precluded from doing that should it determine that that is what it should do. The Committee may also decide that it wants to do a considerable amount of research and discuss the question in general before it investigates cases. That, I might add, is a matter for the Committee itself. As has already been pointed out properly in debate, not only is the Committee subject to any reference that could properly be made to it by the Senate, but also, of course, it cannot dictate itself how the matter should be dealt with. Whatever the Committee determines should happen can only come back to this place as a recommendation from the Committee. It will be the Senate itself that determines whether any definitive action will be taken by the Senate in response to that reference. Having said all that, I would simply ask the Senate to support my amendment to Senator Chaney's motion. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.09) —Madam Acting Deputy President, in light of what I understand will be your position on the Privileges Committee, it is probably very fitting that you are in the chair and are thereby precluded from participating in this debate. I would like to respond to Senator Collins's amendment. Some of the discussion in the chamber has made following the debate more difficult than it would otherwise have been. While Senator Cooney was speaking, Senator Collins and I were talking to the Australian Democrats. Because of that, I must say that I was not able to follow completely some elements of the debate. At this stage I will purely address myself to Senator Collins's amendment rather than to the other elements of the debate that has taken place. Senator Collins has proposed the sending off to the Privileges Committee of a quite general reference on the issues which are raised by the matter contained in my motion. The amendment that he has put down is in very broad terms. His amendment seeks to insert the following words: Whether the circulation of a petition containing defamatory material for the purpose of gaining signatures and subsequent submission to the Senate is or ought to be privileged and how such issues should be determined and in what forum. I agree with Senator Collins's personal opinion, which has not been reflected in the wording of his amendment, that, in a sense, describing the material as defamatory material begs the question. One of the most difficult issues in this is the question of whether or not something is defamatory. What I heard of Senator Cooney's speech took me back to the magistrates courts in a quite forceful way. I heard him address the question of this material. I would have to say that his view as to the defamatory nature of this petition and mine are starkly at odds. He described the material in terms that I would regard as highly excessive. I read the petition once in the course of this debate. I believe that it would be a very tender soul who would regard the contents of that petition as being defamatory. But that is not a matter that we should be focusing on. The point is simply brought out that the determination of whether or not something is defamatory is a difficult matter. It is a legal matter and opinions in this place will differ and do not matter anyway. What concerns me about the amendment that Senator Collins has moved is its very generality. If we look at the development of the law of privilege, we will find in fact that the Parliament has been forced to address itself to particular cases. Although Labor senators have expressed some abhorrence at the fact that specific people have been brought into this-in this case, on the one hand the complaining would-be petitioner and, on the other hand the ex-Premier of Western Australia-the reality is that all of the precedents in this area relate to individual cases which have been addressed by the Parliament. The whole body of law on privilege had been, until our own legislation of last year, built up on an examination of particular cases. My worry about the generality of what has been proposed by Senator Collins is twofold. My first concern is that he is setting the Committee an impossible task by asking it to try to cover fully what is such a generalised reference. My second concern, though, is that this generalisation could enable the Committee to avoid the particular concerns that I have raised in my motion. I listened very carefully to what Senator Collins had to say and to the exchange between Senator Collins and the Australian Democrats during his speech when the question was raised of whether or not the petitioner in this case could come forward and give to the Committee of Privileges the facts of his case and why he is concerned. Senator Collins said that he wanted to make it clear-he had taken advice on this-that the removal of the reference to the persons involved in the present case does not preclude the Committee, of its own motion, from having the persons before it. The rub, of course, is that this matter may or may not be acceded to by the Committee. That is why the Australian Democrats raised the point that the Senate could direct the Committee to hear a matter if there appeared to be a case of injustice. I would suggest to Senator Collins that an alternative approach would in fact be preferable. I would ask the Australian Democrats in particular to consider this alternative approach. I believe that it is perfectly in accordance with the way in which Parliament has successfully dealt with privilege matters in the past that the particular matter of concern is dealt with as a particular matter of concern. One goes, then, from the particular to the general principle which has been distilled. There is nothing odd about that. The whole of the common law has been built up on that same principle. I would suggest that it would be sounder to leave my motion as it is and, if it is wished to ensure that the general principles that are sought to be adduced are dealt with, to add Senator Collins's words to my motion. Senator Collins —That destroys the amendment and the purpose of it. Senator CHANEY —The reality is that there is, I think, at least a danger that the amendment in the form put forward by Senator Collins will in fact present both an impossible task to the Committee, because of its very generality, and a risk that it will not be able to come to grips with the particular complaint which has given this issue some clarity. Senator Collins —Should they be so foolish, the Senate can redress that. Senator CHANEY —I would like to make sure that what Senator Collins has just said is on the record. I am sure that it will be now. I think it is very important that that point is clear because it would appear that the support that Senator Collins is giving his own amendment, which is likely to be shared by other members of the Australian Labor Party, is on the basis of assuming that the Committee will be accessible to this person if he wishes to come forward and put his case as to why the Senate should deal with this situation. I believe that that access is absolutely vital. It lies in the hands of the citizen concerned as to whether he should avail himself of that. That is his decision. The Opposition believes that the particular case should be dealt with. We have no objection to the addition of those words, but on that basis we will oppose the amendment. Enough has been said in this debate to indicate that there are real difficulties, even in respect of a narrow examination. In his speech, the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) made a great deal of the rights of people to sue for defamation. If honourable senators look at my speech in this place, they will find that I made the point that we are dealing with a competing set of rights. There is the right of the Parliament and the right of the citizen in respect of the Parliament; there are the rights of individuals to protect themselves against defamatory statements. There is no suggestion by the Opposition that there are not difficulties in marrying those two rights and I believe that, if we try to deal with this matter on the basis of dealing with every case that might come before us, there is a real risk of failure. I also think that if we are dealing with this matter in the abstract, which enables Senator Collins to say that he is alarmed and horrified that a gross and defamatory statement could be distributed because of this procedure, then we run the risk that this particular case will be regarded as one of a gross and defamatory statement in circumstances in which I believe that that would be quite inaccurate. I was somewhat puzzled by Senator Cooney's suggestion that the settlement of this case in some way indicated to the Senate that the solicitors involved had agreed that the matter involved a defamatory statement. If Senator Cooney has had no experience of parties having to settle litigation because they simply cannot financially afford that litigation, then he has had a very narrow practice indeed. I think that anyone who has had any experience in the law in Australia knows that it is beyond the capacity of many middle income Australians to pay the costs involved and on that basis they must avoid litigation. If Senator Cooney has had such a sheltered practice in Victoria that he has never come across such a case, then all I can say is that I envy him. Senator Cooney —Are you saying that that is why it was settled? Senator CHANEY —I do not know that, nor does anybody. There have been so many conflicting assertions of fact in this debate that one can only say that a proper examination of those facts by a committee is the only way to settle the matter. Senator Cooney's and Senator Robert Ray's assertions are all based on their information, just as my assertions are based on the information that has been provided to me. I do not believe that in this forum those issues can be finally determined. Senator Cooney —It would be an extraordinary thing if somebody could libel somebody else, believing it was true, and then withdraw with an apology. Senator CHANEY —That is a relatively simple-minded observation. For Senator Cooney to suggest that the withdrawal of a statement believed to be true under threat of legal proceedings means that that person has changed his mind and believes the statement is no longer true is a quite extraordinary statement. The simple point that I have been making-and I am surprised that Senator Cooney is not prepared to concede it-is that the cost of litigation is a factor in determining how people behave in many of these circumstances. If he does not understand that, then he does not understand the problem which is being brought forward in this case. We have here a quite simple set of facts which a long debate cannot obscure. The reality is that a petition, in terms which have been read out in this Parliament, was circulated by an Australian citizen. That petition was withdrawn under circumstances which have been canvassed in this debate-circumstances involving the threat of legal proceedings for defamation. As a result of that settlement there was a collecting up of petitions and, as I understand it, the destruction of some of them. Costs were paid to the ex-Premier of Western Australia. The problem which this Senate has to face is that the proper access of Australian citizens to this Parliament can be denied by the use of legal process in cases where there is simply an alleged defamation. In those circumstances, for us to turn our backs on the matter and take the view that that is not a problem is to ignore reality. I believe that there has been an ignoring of that reality in much of the debate that has taken place this morning. On behalf of the Opposition, I oppose the amendment moved by Senator Collins. I again ask the Australian Democrats to consider the fact that privilege matters have always been dealt with on the basis of moving from the particular to the general. In this case there should be no suggestion that the particular case is not to be examined because it is one which I believe raises very serious issues, not only for the citizen concerned but also for other Australians who might be involved in petitioning. It is not enough for both Senator Ray and Senator Cooney to say with great heat that it cannot or should not be asserted that an Australian can circulate grossly defamatory material with impunity in the form of a petition. They have not addressed themselves to the issue of what happens if an Australian wishes to circulate material which is not defamatory but faces the prospect of expensive, drawn out legal proceedings to prove that point. That is a simple, practical method of blocking access to this Parliament. In the debate which has taken place neither Senator Ray, who led for the Government, nor Senator Cooney, who I think-to do him justice-filled in time to some extent to allow consideration of an amendment and spoke for his full 30 minutes, probably at the request of the Minister for Home Affairs, paid attention to that very significant, practical problem which can face citizens of limited means trying to get access to this Parliament. That is a very serious problem. I do not believe that Senator Collins's amendment is the best way of ensuring that the Privileges Committee looks at the real difficulties which this case raises. It would be far too easy, on a generalised reference, to take the simple view that if something is defamatory it should not be circulated. That is far too neat for the issues raised by the present case. We have here a situation which requires that we ensure that somebody is not denied his rights to come to this Parliament by the use of the threat of legal proceedings which economics preclude being determined by the courts. I am sure that this matter will be concluded without too much more debate. I see that Senator Burns is here. He is one who takes a keen interest in these debates. I say to him, as a senator representing people who do not have a lot of money, that he and other Labor senators are in a position to show some sympathy for the real problems of people of limited means who are up against people who have relatively greater means. I used to think that the Australian Labor Party had great concerns about that balance in our society. I see very little evidence of it in this debate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.24) —The issue at hand is the amendment moved by Senator Collins. Senator Collins is seeking to substitute the general principle for the particular case. I indicate that that would have our support. In answer to some of the points raised by Senator Chaney, I note that his motion did not require the Standing Committee of Privileges to call either Strickland or Burke. In fact, the Committee can do what it likes. It would be very odd not to have them called, I admit, but it would have no obligation and no requirement to call them. In fact, it would not even have a requirement to tell them that a hearing was being conducted. Some of the members of the Committee have been sitting in the chamber throughout the entire debate and are very much aware of what the issues are. I believe it would be very odd to go into a general inquiry without looking at that specific item. I raise a particular point, which is that the motion refers to looking at defamatory material; I think that is the crux of the matter. It also asks how that will be determined and where. Fairly obviously, as Senator Collins pointed out, at least on the first glance one assumes that it will be in the courts. Senator Chaney quite rightly has an additional concern in that in the case to which he referred he maintains that there is no court action. As I understand it, there has not been a court hearing on it, so a court has not made a determination on whether the material was defamatory. The parties have come to an agreement by the issuing of an apology; hence it is not likely to get to court. So there is a further item, which I am quite sure needs to be picked up, of material which somebody is claiming to be defamatory. I do not perceive that any responsible committee of this chamber would go into an inquiry and not pick up those types of nuances and deal with the issue once and for all. One of the saving graces of this chamber is that our committees do do a thorough job when they deal with these issues. In fact, all the issues with which I have been involved on the Privileges Committee have been dealt with in the most thorough and comprehensive manner, picking up items that had not even been referred to in debate, let alone those items that had been referred to in debate. So I am quite sure that the Committee will look at the specific issue. I am sure that it will advise Mr Burke and Mr Strickland that it is looking at this, and I presume it will probably invite them to make submissions to and even appear before it, if that seems to fit in with the operation, which I think it does. What the general will do for the particular is to remove Senator Cooney's-- Senator Chaney —What if it refuses to hear a submission? Senator MACKLIN —If it refused to hear one, we have other mechanisms to deal with that at a later date. But this does satisfy Senator Cooney's proposition-which I must admit I did feel had substance-in that we are not necessarily going to string up anybody. I think he put it a little strongly and went a little over the top; certainly some parts were simply false, particularly the last part where he said that this would go on for evermore. If the Committee made a determination, presumably this would not happen again one way or the other, unless Senator Cooney was postulating that both the courts and the Senate Privileges Committee would be ignored. I do not think that would happen, and hence any determination that is likely to be made would satisfy that. I think that addressing the general issue would get us back a recommendation that would satisfy this. Senator Chaney should be satisfied because the particular items will have to be rehearsed. That is, as it were, one step down from defamatory material in that it relates to material which somebody is claiming to be defamatory and which has gone through some type of reconciliation process-irrespective of whether it was forced, to use Senator Chaney's terms, or given freely of the person's own accord because the person was wrong. I do not know the substance of the situation so am not able to judge that, and I do not think that I should in any event. The amendment states `whether the circulation of a petition containing defamatory material for the purpose of gaining signatures and subsequent submission to the Senate is or ought to be privileged and how such issues should be determined and in what forum'. I think that covers all of the principle matters that have been raised here today. In Senator Chaney's first speech what he was interested in was satisfying the principle matters. He should be satisfied that the principle matters will now be addressed. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Collins's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Harradine, B.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Button, J. M. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Wood, W. R.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael 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.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Evans, Gareth Lewis, A. W. R.Jones, G. N. Baume, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Debate resumed from 15 March, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(12.37) —The Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill extends further the care that the Federal Government has for this country's natural resources. It is proper that it should because this country needs protection. It is proper to take action in the year of the Bicentenary to help atone for the years of disrespect, ill treatment and exploitation of one of the most marvellous continents. That has not always been so. For perhaps 3,000 generations before the arrival of the Europeans, Aborigines evolved a practice of customary behaviour and an extremely rich ritual and psychic life to create a relatively harmonious membership of the Australian environment. Senator Boswell —Why do they always put you on a suicide mission? Senator COONEY —Senator Boswell says that it is a suicide mission. Unless I subject myself to this, he will commit the forests, the natural life and the great heritage of this country to death. Senator Boswell —Tell us about the working man you are supposed to be representing. Senator COONEY —What is being said about the working man and the working woman is this: because this Government is intent on protecting this country, not only for its present generation but also for those of the future, it follows as a matter of course that some people will be put out of work. To say that they are being put out of work because legislation is diminishing this country's resources is, of course, incorrect. The reality is that logging has taken place over the past century or so and the resources have dwindled because of overuse. The Northern Rainforest Management Agency (NORMA) was set up by the Queensland Government to fight the World Heritage listing of the wet tropical rainforests. A report of that study was presented to a recent meeting of NORMA's scientific committee. Under the heading `Summary' the report, in part, reads: The Committee found that out of the 167,000 hectares allocated for logging by the Forestry Department, 126,000 hectares or three-quarters of the area was of such high conservation significance that it should not be logged. This would reduce the timber industry to 25 per cent of its 1987 level. That report was prepared by the Northern Rainforest Management Agency, which was set up by the Queensland Government to fight World Heritage listing. Senator Boswell —I raise a point of order. The honourable senator said that he had quoted from a NORMA document. That opinion was not NORMA's opinion; it was the opinion of one man in NORMA and it was overruled by NORMA. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —That is not a point of order. Senator COONEY —That is simply a matter of fact. Senator Boswell has already spoken and we will not hear his brilliance again in this debate. Perhaps an honourable senator following me in this debate will correct that, if Senator Boswell feels that it should be corrected. Is Senator Boswell saying that no part of Queensland is worth saving for future generations? Is that what he, one of the foremost senators from Queensland, is saying? The reality is that jobs are being lost in Queensland and other areas, but that is because the resources are being taken from the people and sold overseas and in Australia. Because of the way the forests have been used over the years, we are being robbed of not only our great heritage but also the very resources which the Opposition purports to want to save. Of course, people who lose their jobs must be sympathised with grandly. This Government is doing something about that, in terms of not only those who will be affected directly by legislation but also those who are affected by the dwindling of resources as a result of the use to which they have been put over the years. This Government has created one million jobs since it came into power. Senator Stone —Talk about the Bill. Senator COONEY —It is interesting that, when we talk about the Bill, the Opposition asks, `What about the jobs?'. When we talk about jobs, on the invitation of the Opposition, and show that this Government has acted mightily in terms of creating jobs, the Opposition becomes embarrassed because we have shown that the Government has created jobs and that jobs are available for those who have been made redundant by our forestry policies, so it asks us to talk about something else. Why does the Opposition want this Government to talk about anything but the great success it has had in creating jobs or its economic record? At the same time, the Government has created a legislative basis for the preservation of this country so that the generation that follows us will benefit from it and enjoy it. That is the sort of thing in which the Opposition is disappointed. This Government-the Fraser Government which preceded it was unable to do so-has created an economic basis for this country's future growth and, at the same time, has preserved the environment so that those who will benefit from our economic policies will be able to enjoy not only the prosperity that this Government is bringing but also the beauty that will be preserved in the nation. That is what we are all about. We have combined the two things. The difficulty that the opposition falls into is this: it says, `Look, those two things cannot go together. You have to create jobs, and thereby ruin the environment, or preserve the environment and thereby diminish jobs'. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that as from today the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Senator Bolkus, is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, for the purpose of answering questions in this chamber, instead of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to Mr Mick Young's appointment as a $1,000 a day consultant to Qantas Airways Ltd. I ask: Was Qantas advised before making this appointment that Mr Young had been cleared of any wrongdoing in the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd affair? If so, who gave that advice to Qantas and on what basis was such information made available to Qantas? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the quantum of the consultancy payment proposed to be made to Mr Young, I do not accept the figure that Senator Baume uses. The figure of $1,000 a day is the figure that has been cited by Mr Beale. It has been responded to by Qantas, which has said that the figure in question is grossly exaggerated. I would have thought that if there is a degree of decency on the part of members of the Opposition in this respect, rather than, as I have said before, a vulgar, opportunistic desire to try to derive some political capital out of deliberate misstatement of the truth, that is for their consciences. As to whether Qantas was advised of anything in relation to the Harris-Daishowa affair, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. As I have said previously, I regarded it-as the Prime Minister regarded the whole question of the possible appointment of Mr Young by Qantas-as a matter for the commercial judgment of that particular company. I did not seek to intervene or involve myself in any way, nor have I made any inquiries as to what information that company may have had or may have regarded as relevant to its appointment in question. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I ask: What is the most recent information in relation to the growth in employment of wage and salary earners? What is the growth rate for employment of wage and salary earners in Australia? What information can the Minister provide in relation to the relative performance of the States in this area and the causes of any differences in relative performances? Senator WALSH —The most recent information regarding the growth in employment of wage and salary earners is in the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for the September quarter of 1987 which were released in February. They show that the growth rate nationally is 3.3 per cent. Within that national average figure there is a wide range of performance between the States and Territories, varying from a figure of minus 4 per cent in the Northern Territory and a low figure of 1.7 per cent in Queensland to 4.1 per cent in New South Wales and 4 1/2 per cent in South Australia. I believe that those latter two States have the highest growth rate of all. The causes of the discrepancy in those performances I suggest are not very hard to pinpoint, that is, that the Northern Territory and Queensland have pretty incompetent non-Labor governments; the two States I mentioned as having the highest growth rates have competent Labor governments. I think that the messages behind that ought to be pretty clear to the people in New South Wales, that is, if they want to repeat in New South Wales the sort of thing that has been happening in Queensland and the Northern Territory over recent years, they should vote for the same sort of government as the Northern Territory and Queensland have. Senator BISHOP —I address my question to the Minister for Justice and refer him to my question to him on 25 February last concerning the police investigation of the Secretary of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in New South Wales, Mr Stephen Loosley. On that occasion the Minister told the Senate in a highly indignant manner: . . . there is no foundation whatsoever for the scurrilous suggestion that . . . Mr Unsworth, the Premier of New South Wales has been provided with a confidential Australian Federal Police (AFP) report. That is, concerning the Harris-Daishowa-Young-Loosley affair. I refer the Minister to Mr Unsworth's statement this morning to Mike Carlton on radio 2GB: I think you will find that while Stephen Loosley has taken initial responsibility, in the long run he will not be held responsible for what was an administrative question. In light of this statement, I ask the Minister again: Is Mr Unsworth privy to the contents of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) report and, indeed, privy to whatever further investigations are being carried out by the Federal Police? Further, as Mr Unsworth seems to have information to determine whether or not Mr Loosley has a case to answer, will the Minister agree that the people of New South Wales have the right to have the same information as Mr Unsworth before the New South Wales election next Saturday so that they too can make a judgment on the truthfulness of the ALP in New South Wales? Senator TATE —Having listened to and made a short note of the alleged statement attributed to Mr Unsworth on this morning's 2GB broadcast I find nothing in those remarks that would lead me to suppose that Mr Unsworth had in his possession any AFP report in relation to the Harris-Daishowa affair. The fact is that I have no reason whatsoever, either from my general knowledge or from anything that has been said in the chamber today by way of question, to suppose that Mr Unsworth has access to such an AFP report. In fact, I would think it so improbable as to be beyond any plausibility whatsoever. The fact is that, as I have said many times to this chamber, the Australian Federal Police is undertaking the investigation into these allegations. It will make a report available to the Director of Public Prosecutions, a person whose integrity is beyond question and whose independence is guaranteed by statute of this Parliament. It is up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision as to whether any prosecution should go ahead. Should he decide that no prosecution should go ahead then, in his unfettered discretion, he may care to give reasons as to why he has so decided. If he does decide that a prosecution should go ahead, obviously the matter will go ahead. There is no ministerial opportunity, nor would I seek it, to have the AFP report, either in its interim form or its final form, made available to me or to any other Minister or, indeed, to the informant, the Australian Electoral Commission. In that situation I have confidence that the AFP report will be made available in the proper way to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to him alone. Senator DEVLIN —I ask whether the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories will comment on the scuttling of the Nella Dan and the suggestion by the honourable member for Bass, Mr Warwick Smith, that everything possible was not done to minimise the losses to the Commonwealth. Senator RICHARDSON —Yes. The Nella Dan ran aground at Macquarie Island on 3 December in strong winds, which are not uncommon for Macquarie Island at that time of the year or, indeed, any other time of the year. Some 60 per cent of the cargo for Macquarie Island had already been unloaded. Most of the portable scientific equipment-five to six tonnes of it-and the cargo were removed manually from the grounded vessel by volunteer expeditioners in difficult conditions. The balance of the station's fuel was pumped ashore, as I think I said in answer to another question here last year, using station equipment. It is understandable that the heavy cargo and equipment could not be removed, given that the lifting gear was inoperative due to the conditions prevailing at the time. A salvage operation was mounted by the ship's owners. I think Mr Smith is confused rather badly about who owned the ship in the first place. The Lauritzen line used an Australian salvage company and a chartered rig supply vessel to attempt the salvage. So we saw a re-floating and the removal of oil; and an expert assessment was provided to the owners by those who would know a little more about such matters than Mr Smith. The owners decided, therefore, that on practical and financial grounds there was no option but to scuttle. That was done at 5.42 on 24 December 1987 under a sea dumping permit issued by me as the responsible Minister. The Department of Transport and Communications officer designated in the permit has certified that the dumping took place, as far as was practical, within the terms of the permit. That minor discrepancy occurred only because a bit of a problem was encountered in the scuttling. There was a severe list in the vessel and fire had broken out on board as well. We are still awaiting the outcome of the inquiry of the Department of Transport and Communications into the incident. The extent of the Commonwealth's loss and its legal position on that loss is currently being assessed by my Department in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department. The reality is that at the end of the day, when it is not your ship, it is not your job to assess whether the vessel can or should be re-floated or towed back to Australia. If it is the considered opinion of experts that scuttling is the only course available, scuttling is what takes place. That is what happened on this occasion. Someone ought to tell Mr Smith that he is barking up the wrong tree. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to a report in today's Melbourne Herald that the European Atomic Energy Community approved the re-labelling of a shipment of Australian uranium to enable it to be enriched to weapons grade, in violation of Australia's safeguards agreement with EURATOM. I refer also to statements made in the Senate by the Minister as follows: on 17 September 1985, claiming that Australia's bilateral safeguards treaties ensure `that Australian uranium is not being diverted for use in nuclear weapons by France or any other state'; on 22 August 1986, claiming that the EURATOM safeguards system verifies `that nuclear material supplied for peaceful purposes is not diverted to military or nuclear purposes'; on 1 May 1986, claiming that he-the Minister-could `guarantee that no Australian uranium stays in the USSR'; on 5 May 1986, claiming that France has not used Australian uranium tails in the Superphenix reactor. I ask: First, given that EURATOM has deliberately violated Australia's safeguards agreements, apparently without the Government's knowledge, does the Minister agree that these previous statements by him are either false or unable to be proved to be true by the Australian Government? Accordingly, does the Minister agree that he has misled Parliament in making these claims? Second, does the Minister agree that the Government does not know how Australian uranium is used once it leaves Australia? Finally, does the Minister therefore agree that the Government's uranium export conditions are useless and that, to be consistent with its uranium policy, the Government must immediately stop the export of uranium? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am partially aware of yesterday's report to which Senator Haines is referring, in the sense that I know that the matter has been in issue publicly; but I have not had the time or the opportunity to examine for myself or to seek information about the veracity that is properly attributable to the report in question. If it is just a re-run of some of the allegations which were made some little time ago and which were the subject of earlier and detailed investigation which did not lead me in any way to change the substance of statements I made earlier as Minister for Resources and Energy, obviously I stand by what I said. If the report amounts to some new allegation which comes from a credible source, obviously the report will have to be the subject of investigation and further response. The most I can undertake to do in the present circumstances, unless Senator Cook has some further information in his capacity as Minister for Resources, is to refer the matter to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and see what further reply he is able to make. Senator SCHACHT —I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a Press release issued yesterday by Australian Democrat Senator Janet Powell in which she proposes that the charter of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation be extended and that it take over the now defunct Times on Sunday newspaper? Can the Minister provide any information as to the cost to the Commonwealth Budget of such a proposal? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the statement referred to by Senator Schacht. Indeed, I have a copy of it here. It refers to the desperate need for a newspaper free from any possibility of editorial intereference. That was not a slip of the tongue; it is spelt i-n-t-e-r-e-f-e-r-e-n-c-e. So I can only assume that the degree of editorial freedom or non-editorial involvement proposed should also extend to not correcting spelling errors. How a newspaper that did not have any editorial management, editorial interference, editorial intereference, or however one likes to put it, could function realistically is beyond my comprehension. It seems to me that if there was no control, no management, no responsibility and no accountability any newspaper staff would be a little like a bunch of headless chooks-or, indeed, some might be unkind enough to say a little like the Democrats themselves. I have been asked about the financial consequences of such a proposal. I understand that the Times on Sunday has been losing about $9m a year. There is a rather unkind joke circulating in Sydney which takes the form of the question, `How do you start a small business?'. The answer is, `You give Warwick Fairfax a big business'. Whatever truth, if any, there may be in that, the losses sustained by the Times on Sunday go back to well before the period that Mr Fairfax Junior took over the management of the John Fairfax company. If the index of internal managerial efficiency and other efficiency which the Australian Broadcasting Corporation displayed were to be superimposed on the longstanding losses of that newspaper, I think the possibility for that figure to multiply would be pretty high, and the losses sustained by the Commonwealth would be a multiple of $9m a year. I wonder why Senator Powell referred only to the Times on Sunday and why she did not suggest that, one way or another, the Commonwealth should take over the Sydney Sun as well, which I understand has been losing $20m a year. If the Democrats and all the other fairies at the bottom of the garden really believe it is so necessary to keep a newspaper like the Times on Sunday alive and that it continue to be published, I suggest that they back their belief in that with their own money instead of trying to have taxpayers' money put up to do it. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I refer the Minister to reports that Australian Federal Police (AFP) phone tap material relating to the activities of murdered drug dealer Tony `Spaghetti' Eustace was not made available to the coronial inquiry into his death. I refer the Minister also to the fact that that material is alleged to reveal approaches by Eustace to a woman who, in return for the promise of financial assistance, agreed to approach the late Mr Justice Murphy on Eustace's behalf. Is it a fact that, as reported, this information was available to the commission of inquiry into the conduct of the late judge? If so, is it amongst the material which has been locked away from public scrutiny for 30 years by the Government's legislation following termination of that inquiry? Is it a fact that there is material which is not available to the current inquiry investigating these matters in New South Wales? If so, what will the Minister do to ensure that it is made available? Senator TATE —I have some information which I think will go a long way towards answering Senator Brownhill's question. I have seen recent Press reports relating to inquests into the deaths of Eustace and Chubb and they have included quotations from, and references to, material recorded by the Australian Federal Police. The material was the product of listening devices installed during a major drug investigation. It was recorded by the AFP under the provisions of the Customs Act 1901. Material of relevance to possible State offences was passed by the AFP to the New South Wales Police soon after it became available. Recent Press articles have also purported to quote from transcripts of recordings made by the AFP under the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1959. The AFP is presently conducting an inquiry to establish whether the publishing of the transcript material constitutes a breach of the Act. That is the only material that I have available in answer to the question at the moment. Senator WOOD —By a happy coincidence, Mr President, my question is almost a supplementary question to that asked by Senator Haines and it is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Is the Minister aware of recent allegations in the news magazine Der Spiegel of illegal arrangements between the European Atomic Energy Community and the West German nuclear processing company unfortunately named Nukem, resulting in the exchange of certificates of origin for uranium controlled by EURATOM? Can the Minister inform the chamber of any investigations being undertaken by officials of the Australian Safeguards Office into this very serious matter? Can the Minister assure the chamber that uranium of Australian origin has not been exchanged, diverted, or in any way implicated? Senator COOK —I am aware of the Der Spiegel article. I am aware that officers of the Department have obtained the article and translated it and they have discovered that there are many competing allegations in it. It has been a bit difficult to disentwine all those allegations. But to answer Senator Wood's specific questions, I understand that the reflagging referred to was an internal flag swap which complied with the Australian nuclear safeguard agreements, in that Australian safeguard conditions, which guard against the use of the material for nuclear weapons purposes, continue to apply to this material. Internal flag swaps such as these do not require prior Australian consent. However, I am concerned by the allegation in the article that the uranium had been intended for enrichment to nuclear weapons grade in a third country without Australian Government knowledge. Clearly, this would contravene Australian Government policy and would not be tolerated. Senator Haines —Does it mean Senator Evans has misled the Parliament? Senator COOK —It is entirely consistent with what Senator Gareth Evans has said. The allegations that have been made in that article are being pursued. Advice to Australia from the International Atomic Energy Agency, EURATOM and our nuclear trading partners is that, in keeping with Australian safeguards policy, there has been no diversion of Australian origin nuclear material from peaceful use. Senator MESSNER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations with responsibility for the Remuneration Tribunals Act. Is it a fact that, as a result of Hawke Government legislation, a former member of parliament taking government employment stands to lose up to half of his or her parliamentary pension? Is it not also a fact that, with respect to semi-government authorities, this situation applies only if the Minister so directs? What is the position with people taking full or part time employment with a body such as Qantas Airways Ltd? What action does the Minister propose, given that the decision appears to be one for the Minister, as to whether Mr Young gets a full pension or a half pension? Senator BUTTON —I think the facts in the preamble to Senator Messner's question are correct as he put them. But in so far as they relate to any action to be taken by the Minister or any view to be expressed by the Minister in the particular circumstances in question, I will have to obtain the Minister's view about that and I will do so as soon as possible. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. During his visit to the Philippines he talked about the presence in that country of Australians engaged in criminal or other undesirable activities. Apart from the signing of the extradition treaty, what has Australia done and what will Australia do to rectify the situation? Senator TATE —I am pleased to have been given an opportunity to comment on the importance of the signing last week of the extradition treaty in Manila between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Philippines. It was a most significant step. It was the first such extradition treaty signed between Australia and a South East Asian country. It closes off safe havens and places of retreat for Australian criminals which have been well documented by various royal commissions. Indeed, a cursory understanding of the underworld in Manila would reveal that Australians have established for themselves a niche in the prostitution and gambling world there and also in drug trafficking. That creates a very unfortunate image of Australians in the Philippines. I was told by Embassy officials that not only does it affect decent Australian businessmen trying to conduct business in the Philippines but also it creates a more general bad impression of Australians amongst ordinary Filipinos, particularly in Manila and other major places. My visit to the Philippines was part of a visit to South East Asia, including Thailand, which was directed precisely to closing off these safe havens. With the signing of the extradition treaty, we believe that we will be able to extradite those who have committed offences in Australia and fled to the Philippines in order to escape the arm of our law. We intend to follow up the momentum established by the signing of this treaty. We have had very successful discussions on the conclusion of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty, and I believe that the support of the Justice Secretary, Mr Ordonez, and President Aquino, to whom I mentioned this matter, was immediate, and I am sure that it will be facilitated within the Philippines Executive and parliamentary wings. This will enable us to track down the assets of Australian criminals and drug traffickers who have removed their assets to the Philippines to enable, upon conviction in Australia for an offence, those assets to be confiscated by the Philippines Government and returned to Australia into our national coffers as they ought to be. Mutually, of course, it will also assist the Philippines Government to recover any Marcos assets in Australia. It is known that certain assets-real estate and otherwise-are held by cronies of Marcos in Australia. Of course, that was a major factor in the interest shown by President Aquino and others in this possibility. It is also the case, and it is worth mentioning, that I was extremely impressed by the very excellent relations between the law enforcement agencies in the Philippines, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Customs Service. I believe that that excellent relationship, which has led to the putting of people under surveillance and to notifying Australian law enforcement authorities of the fact that certain criminals and drug traffickers are leaving the Philippines and entering Australia for the purposes of drug trafficking, has led to arrests and charges which I think most Australians are aware of. Our AFP liaison officer in the Philippines is doing an excellent job and that is just one more element in the very good relationship we are building up with South East Asian countries in relation to law enforcement in the region. Criminals do not recognise national boundaries, and we, in our fight against organised crime, must adopt the same approach. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Is it the policy of her Government to condemn racist remarks directed against particular groups or individuals because of their ethnic origins? What is her attitude and that of her Government to a figure in public life who says, `I do not want to be jingoistic, but I do not like Japs'? Will she agree that when an attack is made on Mr Nick Greiner in the terms that he should `pack his bags and go back where he came from', this constitutes a grave slur on Mr Greiner's Hungarian origins and is a massive insult to all overseas born Australians? Since both the remarks about Japs and going back where he came from were made by New South Wales Labor Party Leader Barrie Unsworth, will the Minister unequivocally condemn Mr Unsworth's offensive racist comments, or will she defend him because he is a member of the Australian Labor Party and the overriding policy of her Government is to protect its mates no matter how disgusting their behaviour? Senator REYNOLDS —I think it is a great pity that Senator Puplick did not pay me the courtesy of giving me notice of this question. I have not seen the remarks that the honourable senator alleges have been made, and I am not prepared to comment when I have no evidence of those remarks in front of me. I do not see why I should take the honourable senator's assessment of what was said when I am not in a position to check the validity of his interpretation. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Notice Paper says that this is the time for questions without notice, is the Minister telling the Senate that she will refuse to answer as to the attitude of her Government on matters put before her of which she has not been given prior notice? Secondly, as a result of her answer will she undertake to obtain confirmation from Mr Unsworth of the remarks which he undoubtedly made and has repeated? Either at the end of Question Time today or prior to Question Time tomorrow will the Minister respond to the question that she has been asked? Senator REYNOLDS —Yes, I am happy to answer Senator Puplick's question in the terms in which it is presented. However, I have nothing before me that indicates the validity of what Senator Puplick has said. Quite frankly, if Ministers were to answer questions on the basis of what Opposition senators allege, obviously Ministers would be placed in a serious situation on many occasions. I shall check the validity of what Senator Puplick is claiming and I shall be happy to answer at the end of Question Time. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to reports in last week's media concerning a survey conducted by the Government on domestic violence in Australia. Does the survey indicate that domestic violence is a major problem in this country? Senator BUTTON —I saw the reports to which Senator Crowley referred. It is an extraordinarily sad fact that the survey carried out in December 1987 on community attitudes towards domestic violence revealed that there is a very high tolerance by Australians to domestic violence. The survey was the first step towards the development of a three year education campaign aimed at reducing the incidence of domestic violence in the community. Because it is recognised that domestic violence affects all groups in society, it has been decided that the campaign will include measures appropriate to communities in both rural and urban areas, to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island groups and to people of a non-English speaking background. A Commonwealth-State task force on domestic violence has been established to provide a consultative network and to take into account work already undertaken, including legislative changes in the States and Territories. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. By way of preface I refer to the report in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald of certain comments made by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Barrie Unsworth, in a television interview last night for Channel 9's A Current Affair. First, is it appropriate to refer to the Minister, as Mr Unsworth did last night, as `some sort of wheat farmer from Western Australia'? Even if it is appropriate, will the Minister join with me in condemning this slur upon the good name of wheat farmers, whether from Western Australia or any- where else? Secondly, is it true to say, as Mr Unsworth said last night, that the Minister `hasn't got much association with the Labor Party'? If so why has the Minister been concealing that fact from all of us-Mr Unsworth apart-for all these years? Finally, will the Minister agree that honourable senators should carefully heed the advice implicit in Mr Unsworth's rhetorical question, `Senator Walsh? Who takes any notice of Senator Walsh'? Senator WALSH —I did not read the Sydney Morning Herald this morning. Unlike the assumption made in reply to an earlier question, I shall take Senator Stone's word that he has correctly quoted those parts of the interview. I do not think is for me to judge whether it is fair for Mr Unsworth to call me some sort of wheat farmer from Western Australia. I have not called myself a wheat farmer for the best part of 14 years. I have put that in the past tense. I suppose I could be called some sort of wheat farmer from Western Australia, even if only in the past tense, just as Senator Stone could be called some sort of wheat farmer's son from Western Australia, or the son of some sort of wheat farmer from Western Australia. As for my membership of the Australia Labor Party, I joined the Party in 1961. Mr Unsworth said that he joined in 1955. So he has been in the Party for six years longer than I. Senator McMULLAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. Is the Minister aware that there is widespread community concern about items of household furniture which are highly flammable? Is it true that this problem poses a serious risk of death to house occupants as a result of toxic fumes produced in the event of a house fire? Senator BOLKUS —The problem that Senator McMullan has raised is well known to the Government. It is known that certain materials used in the construction of household items, especially plastics, will burn very readily and may produce toxic gases which can kill people very quickly. The concern is basically because of the widespread use of polyurethane foam, which is a relatively cheap filling. The foam is used in quite a number of padded furniture items such as lounge chairs and mattresses. It is a material that ignites readily and produces gases, including carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide. Obviously it has a fatal effect in the event of fire. Fire authorities in Australia have already expressed concern about the fact that such materials greatly increase the risk of death in house fires, and are concerned also that most fire deaths result from asphyxiation rather than burns. Public awareness of the situation has been heightened by events in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. In recent days in the United States particularly there have been quite a number of deaths involving toxic fumes from polyurethane. I think that 24 deaths were reported in the period from December 1987 to January 1988. The Government is looking at a number of ways of addressing this problem. It has the example in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America of a scheme of flammability labelling of certain furniture items in order to inform consumers of the level of flammability and the dangers inherent in the items they might be buying. However, to date the Government has not settled upon any firm solution of the problem. The Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs has already written to industry seeking its views, as well as to fire authorities, and safety and consumer organisations, to ascertain options which the Government could adopt to reduce the risk of injury caused by this particular problem. Labelling is the most obvious option. Other options involve the banning of particular materials such as polyurethane foam, and the examination of alternative methods of reducing flammability of low cost items. One concern that the Government has is that the banning of relatively cheap materials such as polyurethane foam obviously will raise the price through the use of alternative products. I thank Senator McMullan for raising this question because the working group is meeting currently and submissions have been sought from interested parties and should be lodged by 31 March 1988. I therefore take this opportunity to remind people involved in the inquiry and the working group that they have until that date to make their concerns known to government. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. The Minister will be aware that last week Dr Blewett announced a grant of $115,000 to the Hobart Women's Health Centre, to be used for research into why cardiovascular disease in Tasmanian women is increasing while the occurrence in men is declining. Is the Minister aware that the Hobart Women's Health Centre has premises but no staff? Is he also aware that the most recent national figures relating to the incidence of cardiovascular disease on a State by State basis, compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1986, show that Tasmania has the highest reduction rate since 1984 for women with cardiovascular disease in all States except Queensland, and that overall Tasmania has the best improvement rate in Australia? I ask: Where is the evidence of an increasing incidence of cardiovascular disease among women in Tasmania? What are the qualifications and experience of the personnel conducting the research at the Hobart Women's Health Centre? In light of the fact that Dr Blewett gave such a large grant to a centre with no staff for research based on false information, what steps did the Government take to establish the bona fides of the application? Senator COOK —I will do my best to answer all of the parts to the question that Senator Walters has posed for me. On 10 March Dr Blewett announced a national health promotion grant of $115,000-odd-- Senator Newman —Very odd dollars. Senator COOK —That was to the Hobart Women's Health Centre for 18 months to develop a health promotion program on cardiovascular health for women. Senator Newman may say that it is odd, but I think it is an important issue. It will be disappointing for Tasmanians to hear that perhaps she does not think it is as important as that. The Hobart Women's Health Centre was established 12 months ago by the Hobart Women's Health Centre Group, which was set up in 1984. The Centre leases a building from which it carries out health education and counselling activities. It is run by three volunteer staff with experience and expertise in women's health. It has received no funding from the State Government and has operated from private donations and voluntary labour. The grant will enable it to expand its activities to benefit more Tasmanian women and to add to the knowledge of health promotion which effectively reaches women. Tasmania is one of the two States which do not have State funded women's health programs to meet local women's needs. Senator Walters asked me about the specific incidence of cardiovascular disease in women. The health promotion to prevent cardiovascular disease is an area of unmet need. Mortality rates for cardiovascular disease for Tasmanian women aged 45 to 59 years increased in the 10 years from 1973 to 1983, when they declined for the rest of Australia. Death rates have begun to decline recently, but the rate of decrease is lower than for men. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister tell me why, when Dr Blewett was informed in Hobart that the Hobart Women's Health Centre did not have any staff and that the incidence of cardiovascular disease in women had decreased, he said that he would give the Hobart Women's Health Foundation the money until the Hobart Women's Health Centre was established and that his Department `might have been using last year's figures instead of this year's'? I can assure the Minister that Dr Blewett was not using last year's figures. Indeed, it was over six years ago that the increase in cardiovascular disease in women in Tasmania took place. Senator COOK —I thank Senator Walters for her long, proselytising speech. Once again she has alleged a series of things, this time not even backed up, as at least an earlier question was backed up, by a reference to a Press report or some ascertainable quotation. Nothing she has said in her supplementary question contains any reference to any evidence at all that Dr Blewett said what she alleges he said. I will take Senator Walters's comments on notice and, if there is anything I think I need to add this week or next, I will add it. Senator GILES —Is the Minister for Resources aware of a recent publication by the Australian Bureau for Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)? Does this publication make predictions about the prospects for Australian mineral industries? Senator COOK —The prospect for the minerals sector in Australia is indeed very good. In fact, over the last 12 months it has recorded quite spectacular growth and, although gold has been a major engine of that growth, it is not entirely the case that the gross figures that have been returned relate to the strong performance of that commodity. I was pleased to be able to read the ABARE publication that came out today. Honourable senators may recall that the Australian Bureau for Agricultural and Resource Economics was formed after the last election when we created the Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy and banded together the Bureau of Resource Economics and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The Australian Bureau for Agricultural and Resource Economics continues to maintain a very high standard in its research and publications, and the figures released in its publication today once again establish that fact beyond any question. I commend the Bureau for its very great work. This morning, in opening the Bureau of Mineral Resources Petroleum and Minerals Review Conference, I was able to refer to the growth that has been rightly termed spectacular for Australia's minerals sector. Perhaps I can go to some of the detail for the Senate. The growth now accounts for almost 8 per cent of gross domestic product, with a mine output valued at over $22 billion. In 1987 the value of our mineral exports was over $16 billion, representing 43 per cent of total exports out of Australia. We expect that level of growth to continue. The ABARE report indicates that we expect a 3.4 per cent annual growth in the minerals sector between now and the year 2000. That growth will underpin our prosperity, help correct our current account deficit and provide tens of thousands of jobs for Australians all around the country. Last year we set new records-this will be of interest to Senator Parer-for mine production in bauxite, black coal, brown coal, diamonds, iron ore and natural gas. Record smelter and refinery production levels were set for alumina, aluminium, copper, gold, lead bullion and zinc. These results are no accident. They reflect the industry's solid and sustained response to Government policies. In minerals, as in other fields, the Government has the settings right. It has provided an appropriate mix of incentives at the same time as ensuring that all Australians receive a fair return for the resources they own. Our record is already substantial, and the trends which I have outlined ensure that we will continue to build on our success in the years ahead. One of the elements that will guarantee that we continue to build on our success is that under this Government we have embarked on a number of consultative arrangements with industry and have been able to attend to a far better industrial relations performance, particularly in this sector, than the previous Government was able to do. Indeed, last Thursday I had the privilege to attend a meeting of the Western Australian Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council, which is a joint Western Australian and Commonwealth body to bring unions, governments and employers together in the iron ore industry. It was reported by the companies at that meeting that contracts that they reached in the last round of contract negotiations with Japan, which guaranteed that Australia would return to be the most significant supplier to the Japanese market and regain the bigger share it had of the Japanese market, were due to the fact that productivity in the iron ore industry had increased by 40 per cent over the last three or four years. Indeed, last October at the Australia-Japan iron ore conference at Scarborough Beach in Western Australia for the first time the Japanese never raised questions with iron ore producers about the reliability of supply because they were satisfied on that front; nor did they raise any questions about industrial relations in Australia. So, in terms of our ability to handle industrial relations in that industry, that has been a significant achievement during the life of this Government. It has enabled us to regain a major share of the Japanese iron ore industry and is indicative of our approach to this whole sector. Senator SHEIL —The Minister for Justice will recall my question to Senator Ryan in December 1987, in which he assisted her with the answer, concerning Dr Blewett's claim that the private doctors of Australia had supplied no hard evidence on medifraud perpetrated within the Health Insurance Commission and involving millions of dollars. Dr Blewett's claim flies in the face of Australian Federal Police (AFP) report of December 1987 recommending that the allegations had substance. This bureaucratic medifraud-shrugged off by Dr Blewett as minor computer error-involves electronic funds transfer and only becomes manifest when cheques are issued by mistake. I have a long list with me of bogus cheques for bogus doctors with bogus provider numbers at bogus addresses involving thousands of dollars, which I seek leave to table. I ask the Minister: When is action to be taken to stop this medifraud, bearing in mind that once electronic funds are transferred the information can be wiped off the computer? It is almost a perfect crime because normally these bogus cheques-such as the ones on the list that I have with me-would be returned to the Health Insurance Commission and never be found. Finally, is the Minister for Community Services and Health hiding this massive loss by reducing Medicare benefits while he raises the levy? The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for the documents to be tabled? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator TATE —I do recall, because I was sitting next to Senator Ryan at the time, the question being asked by Senator Sheil of Senator Ryan as Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health concerning certain allegations, I think made by Dr Menon, that fraudulent cheques had been cashed by Health Insurance Commission employees. I cannot actually recall every element of that question. It is true that Dr Menon originally made certain allegations late last year. As I recall it, Dr Blewett asked the Australian Federal Police to investigate the matter thoroughly and to seek substantiation from Dr Menon of his claim. I understand that when interviewed by the AFP in December 1987, Dr Menon undertook to provide a list of doctors who had allegedly received fraudulent cheques. When the information was not forthcoming, he was again contacted in January. He advised that the information was still not available. Dr Menon agreed to contact the Australian Federal Police when it was available. But, as I understand it, he has not done so. In fact, just prior to Question Time, I received a note from the AFP that it is still waiting for Dr Menon to provide the list of doctors referred to in its earlier minute to me of 6 January. The fact is that these allegations are serious. They are regarded seriously by the Minister for Community Services and Health and, of course, by the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission. Should Dr Menon be able to provide any evidence, the Australian Federal Police will continue its investigations with the full co-operation of the Commission. As to the documents which have just been tabled, I would obviously have to have a look at them. I do not know whether they are the same documents that were the subject of newspaper reports at the weekend concerning a Dr White or whether they are some new bundle of documents. But, certainly, now that they are tabled they will be looked at. As to the latter part of Senator Sheil's question, really, this concerns matters that are better directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. My responsibility is with the AFP and its investigation of this matter. Senator JENKINS —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories in his capacity as the Minister responsible for Territories. Is the Minister aware that the Director of the Commonwealth Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, recently directed staff at the Division to provide `10 single women' to entertain male personnel from the USS Polar Star at the Hobart Sheraton Hotel on Thursday, 3 March 1988? Is this action of the Director and his staff in conformity with the Government's affirmative action program and with Australian Public Service regulations? Does the duty statement of staff of the Antarctic Division include the recruitment of women for the entertainment of foreign sailors? Senator RICHARDSON —I will answer Senator Jenkins's question in my capacity as the Minister who has responsibility for Antarctica, not as the Minister for Territories. Senator Boswell —What about tourism? Senator RICHARDSON —We will get to that. Senator Crichton-Browne —Or the Minister for good times. Senator RICHARDSON —I think that was my predecessor. Senator Jenkins's question seems to confuse two separate events. One was a function at the Sheraton Hotel and the other was a function organised by the Tasmanian Development Authority which was a ferry cruise. Senator Haines —What sort of cruise? Senator RICHARDSON —It was a f-e-r-r-y cruise. The Antarctic Division staff who attended the function at the Sheraton Hotel were the Deputy Director and his wife and another officer of the Division and his wife. Therefore, if the task was to provide 10 single women, the Director did fairly poorly. The other event organised by the Tasmanian Development Authority, that is, the ferry cruise, was in fact a replica of events that have taken place in the past. The Development Authority produced 140 invitations for people to attend a jazz cruise on a Hobart ferry on Thursday, 3 March. It sent 10 of those tickets to the Antarctic Division as, indeed, it had done on other occasions. The only qualification for acceptance of these invitations, which the Development Authority had indicated to the Division on previous occasions, was that the people accepting them ought to be young. Senator Archer —That is discrimination. Senator RICHARDSON —It could be claimed that this was discrimination-such an interpretation is up to the honourable senator. I am not going to sack the person concerned, however. In asking for young people, the Authority did not define what it meant-I do not know whether that means under 40, 30 or 20. Senator Collins —Or under 65. Senator RICHARDSON —I have heard that said about Senator Collins. The tickets for this function came with a complimentary slip. They were made freely available to-- Senator Haines —Oh! Senator RICHARDSON —It is Senator Haines's sexism that worries me terribly on this question. On this occasion, some people were advised that unattached persons would be particularly welcome. The female staff of the Division who were offered tickets to this function have denied any suggestion that attendance was mandatory, that the Director had told them that they had to go. Some were of the view that these tickets would be available only to women, and some were not. However, all staff were aware that acceptance was optional. As it was, two of the staff attended. I have not asked the Director whether or not those two were young, were single or were women. I think on the basis of the information that I have been able to obtain, Senator Jenkins's question amounts to an unwarranted slur on the Director and I believe she owes him an apology. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women to the article in today's Age, headed `Government MPs seek fairness test', which indicates that the Australian Labor Party Caucus voted unanimously to force Ministers to use social justice impact statements as a means of ensuring that there is `greater scrutiny of the effect of legislation and economic decisions'. I further refer the Minister to my question to her on 23 February which suggested that the Government was so out of touch that it needed to use what I called community impact statements to assess the impact of proposals on individual Australians-particularly women-and to her answer rejecting the need for such statements. What is the precise nature of the process by which the impact of proposals has been considered and does the Minister now accept that the process has been inadequate and that these statements are now required? What did the role of the Office of Status of Women have in that process? Senator REYNOLDS —I recall Senator Vanstone's question and I believe that again she misunderstands the role of the Office of Status of Women. As I have spelt out in this chamber on a previous occasion, the Office of Status of Women is a monitoring unit to advise the Government on the impact of policies on women. I said in my answer to Senator Vanstone's question on 23 February that we already had that particular mechanism for women. The proposal that has been reported in this morning's Press as a result of a decision yesterday further extends through the monitoring of government proposals the way in which social justice, including the way policies impact on women, can be monitored. I commend Mr Lamb, MP, for the excellent work that has been done by the social justice committee. Senator Vanstone —You accept that you are out of touch and you need to be put back in touch? You denied it before. Senator REYNOLDS —Not at all, Senator Vanstone. If Senator Vanstone is going to talk about whether people are in touch, I believe that the women of New South Wales should ask her, as Opposition spokesperson on the status of women, what the New South Wales Opposition leader, Nick Greiner, is doing about his women's policy. He claims to have one but he has not produced it. Senator Stone —He is not spreading malicious polls about the Premier's wife for a start; that is what he is not doing. Senator REYNOLDS —Apparently Mr Greiner announced a policy at a luncheon at the Regent Hotel, which seems an eminently fair way of announcing a policy for women to ensure social justice. One could not think of a better way to ensure social justice than to announce a policy affecting the women of New South Wales in one of the conference rooms at the Regent Hotel, where, I understand, he spends most of his time in this election campaign. I do not see that there is any conflict here with what I said on 23 February. In his proposals, Mr Lamb is simply further strengthening-- Senator Vanstone —He is telling you that you are out of touch. Senator REYNOLDS —He is certainly not telling us we are out of touch; he is simply saying that this is the way in which we can further strengthen social justice provisions, not just for women, because we are doing that through the Office of Status of Women, but also for a number of other groups. Senator ROBERT RAY —On 22 February 1988 Senator Sanders asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, a question about Coronation Hill. I have obtained an answer. It is reasonably lengthy so I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Mineral lease 19 is located at Coronation Hill within the Kakadu Conservation Zone. It was originally granted under the Northern Territory Mining Ordinance on 22 July 1947 for the purpose of mining for silver and lead. Under the Ordinance a lessee could explore for any mineral on his lease but could only mine for those minerals specified in the lease. However, at any time he could apply to have additional minerals specified in his lease. The holders of ML 19 did apply, in 1955, to have the lease varied to include copper and uranium. Notwithstanding this history BHP Gold Mines Ltd, the current holders of ML 19, have applied to the Commonwealth to develop a gold, platinum and palladium mine at Coronation Hill. It is for the purpose of assessing the gold, platinum and palladium mine proposal that BHP has been requested to complete an environmental impact statement. On 16 February the Minister for Administrative Services advised the House that he intended to issue BHP with an access authority to remove any doubt surrounding BHP's rights to continue exploration activities presently being undertaken at Coronation Hill. Since then, he has issued two authorities covering the operations of BHP Gold Mines Ltd at Coronation Hill. One authority will allow exploration work to continue on the pre-existing mineral lease areas including ML 19. The other will permit access to those parts of the Conservation Zone outside the leases so that work can be undertaken in preparation of an environmental impact statement. This work is required for the Government's consideration of any future mining plans for Coronation Hill. The exploration authority will be managed on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Northern Territory Director of Mines in consultation with both the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. It specifically excludes the right to explore for uranium. The access authority permitting work outside the pre-existing leases in preparation of the environmental impact statement will be managed by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Both authorities are subject to stringent environmental conditions which have been recommended by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. The authorities can be varied at any time and they can also be terminated if the conditions are not met. Furthermore the exploration authority for the pre-existing mineral leases now provides environmental conditions over the operation which previously did not exist. This is a greatly improved situation. Senator REYNOLDS —During Question Time Senator Puplick asked me a question relating to alleged statements by Mr Unsworth. I undertook to obtain an answer by the end of Question Time. My office has contacted Mr Unsworth's office and his staff deny absolutely that Mr Unsworth has made any such statements about Mr Greiner. I quote exactly from the extract in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 March 1988 when Mr Unsworth toured Darling Harbour. The article said: Mr Unsworth described Mr Greiner as a ``negative blimp on the horizon''. Honourable senators may correct me, but I do not regard `negative blimp on the horizon'-although it is not very complimentary-as an inference of racism. The article then went on to quote Mr Unsworth as saying: The best thing he- that is, Mr Greiner- could do would be to pack his bags and go back to where he came from. That is all that was said. What does that mean? It could mean that he should go back to the suburb that he came from-- Senator Puplick —No-one will believe that! Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Puplick can laugh, but I think that there has been sufficient publicity to indicate that the people of New South Wales are not quite sure why Mr Greiner chooses to conduct his campaign from the Regent Hotel. One could assume that Mr Unsworth had in mind that Mr Greiner would have been far better off back in his electorate of Ku-ring-gai and that is where he should be going. On the evidence from the Sydney Morning Herald, I cannot see anything racist in that example. Mr Unsworth's office also advised that we should be aware that Mr Unsworth is not only the Premier of New South Wales, but also the Minister for Ethnic Affairs. In that capacity he has had frequent and positive interaction with a wide range of ethnic communities in New South Wales and has hosted more than 100 functions for many different ethnic groups. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator REYNOLDS —Honourable senators opposite do not like the facts-only the slurs. Mr Unsworth also enjoys very positive relations with Japan, and New South Wales is sister province to metropolitan Tokyo. His relationship with the Governor is excellent. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.08) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Macklin moving forthwith a motion of which he gave notice earlier this day. I believe that this is a matter of urgency. Monday was the last day available for clemency to be provided without an executive order to the six blacks who were condemned to death for a crime that was committed 3 1/2 years ago. The information became available yesterday; I moved the motion today. However, the problem is that the sentences are due to be carried out on Friday this week. I do believe it is a matter of urgency. At this point I do not want to canvass the substance of the issue, as I understand that both the Government and the Opposition believe it is a matter of urgency. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that they will support the motion. I think they have recognised that the matter is urgent. It is a matter of international concern. It is of concern both to our Government and the governments of Britain, where there has been a debate in the House of Commons; the United States, where there has been a great deal of publicity and indeed appeals from the highest level; West Germany, and most European countries. In fact, most countries around the world have issued appeals for clemency to the South African Government. It is important that these issues be debated in this chamber today and that we do what we can to add our weight to the international campaign to persuade the Government in Pretoria that the course on which it has embarked is not only likely to lead to the deaths of possibly six innocent people but also will vastly exacerbate the situation in South Africa, due to the fact that the executions to be carried out this Friday will be carried out three days short of the anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre. We are dealing with people from the same area and riots which occurred in the same area. We must be mindful that we are looking at the possibility of more deaths surrounding this whole incident. Therefore, I urge the Senate to accept the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, as I understand it will, so we can debate the motion clearly and directly. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.12) —The Government does not oppose the suspension of Standing Orders to deal with this matter. As Senator Macklin had indicated, it is a matter, I would hope, of worldwide community concern. We do not want to debate the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, although we may have some differences as to the substantive motion. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —The Opposition agrees that there should be a debate on the substantive motion. As it happens, the Government and the Opposition are likely to take a similar view on the substantive motion. However, we appear to be of one agreement that we should not waste the Senate's time having a footling debate about whether or not to suspend Standing Orders but should move to the consideration of the substantive motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.12) —I move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the South African Government for its decision to go ahead with the hanging of six black South Africans for the murder of a black municipal councillor despite the fact that the Appeals Court has accepted that there is no proof that the six had contributed to the councillor's death; (b) further condemns the South African Government for ignoring appeals for clemency from Australia's Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, and from countries such as Britain and the United States; and (c) calls on the Australian Government to withdraw visas to the 100 South African gold experts as a practical demonstration of Australia's opposition to the apartheid system which allows this obscenity. The Australian Democrats decided to move the motion today because it is a matter of great urgency. It concerns six people who, while they have not been proven to be guilty of murder, will be hanged on Friday of this week for the murder of a black South African councillor. We believe that the fate of those six people depends on the actions that may be taken around the world to bring home to the South African Government that it is not only its system but also the operation of the justice system in that country that will not and cannot be tolerated by the world at large. There cannot be a more important issue for us to attempt to influence than this one this week. Late last night the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, pleaded with the South African Government to commute the death sentences imposed on the five men and one woman who are to be executed. The Australian Ambassador to South Africa has also made an urgent appeal to South Africa on this matter. Today the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions Congress called on the heads of government to make urgent representations to South Africa to prevent the hangings. As I said in the debate on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, there have been direct appeals from governments around the world-in fact, from all governments representing the type of society in which we live-which we believe are governed by the rule of law and which seek to provide justice. The facts of the case are these: six black South Africans aged between 22 and 32 years are due to be hanged this week-three days short of the twenty-eighth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre on 21 March 1960 when South African police opened fire on a crowd protesting against apartheid laws and 69 people were killed. Those six people have been known in the campaign that has been running internationally as the `Sharpeville Six'. They were found guilty of the murder of a black Sharpeville municipal councillor as a result of his quite gruesome mob killing in September 1984. I would not want it to be taken from anything that I or other honourable senators may say in this debate that we condone in any way that very gruesome murder of a black councillor. At the time of the murder, the black townships had erupted in protest at rent increases imposed by black-run councils of the various areas. The councils had come to be seen by a very large number of blacks in the townships as mere agents for the Government in Pretoria. Men, such as the victim about whom we are talking, Mr Dlamini, were branded as sell-outs and the penalty for collaboration was deemed to be death. After hearing evidence in the case, the trial judge-it is a very salutary lesson to read through some of the extremely flimsy evidence that was offered regarding a number of these people-adopted the previously innocuous legal doctrine of guilt through common purpose. The appeal judge also accepted there was no proof that the six had causally contributed to Mr Dlamini's death. He ruled that they shared a common purpose with a mob intent on murder. Therefore, they were deemed to be accessories to the crime and were sentenced to hang. As I have said, the verdicts were upheld on appeal. Page 83 of the appeal court judgment states: In the case of these accused it is perhaps debatable whether a causal connection between the conduct of each, individually, and the death of the deceased, had indeed not been proved, but in the case of others it must be accepted without doubt, in my opinion, that no such causal connection can be found to have been proved . . . I shall therefore assume that for the purposes of my judgement that it has not been proved in the case of any six accused convicted of murder that their conduct had contributed (as a cause) to the death of the deceased. I will read that again because I think it is extraordinary, when six people are to be hanged this Friday, that the appeal court judge could say: I shall therefore assume that for the purposes of my judgement that it has not been proved in the case of any six accused convicted of murder that their conduct had contributed (as a cause) to the death of the deceased. Later in the appeal court judgment the judge said: In the present case I am dealing with the position of the six accused who have been convicted of murder solely on the basis of common purpose. I think that those facts are clear and undisputed. As has been said on a number of occasions in the international campaign that has been running on this issue, if there were a case for clemency in those countries which have capital punishment, surely this must be one. Unfortunately, all avenues within the South African political and legal system have now been exhausted. Only a presidential reprieve can save the accused. It has been indicated, not formally but at least informally, that President Botha has absolutely no intention of offering clemency in this case. If one looks at the current situation in South Africa one will see fairly clearly why this is so. The reason has nothing to do with the case. It has nothing to do with six people declared by the appeal judge to be innocent of the murder of the person concerned. It has a lot to do with the apartheid system and the political situation in South Africa today. First of all, township elections are due later this year. Obviously President Botha wants to make an example of the Sharpeville six as a means of protecting black councillors and reducing further the street protests and associated violence. Secondly, the pressure from the right wing parties, the Afrikaner parties, in South Africa has been obvious in this particular case. One only has to refer to some of the statements made at meetings around the country, particularly those by the right wing political parties, to know that the majority party is under great pressure from the extreme right in South Africa. Any failure of will, as it will be seen by these right wing parties, in the granting of clemency in this particular case will be seen merely as the Government going weak on the exercise. To be tough now means no clemency. To be tough now offers the opportunity of further votes and seats. I think that it is fairly clear that these people's lives are simply being gambled for votes and seats in South Africa at the local elections coming up shortly-if not at subsequent by-elections and Federal elections. The pressure that has been brought to bear on South Africa up to now has been to no avail. The pressure that our Government, in linking with other governments, has sought to bring to bear has also been to no avail. The legal processes that were used to determined the guilt of the Sharpeville six have far-reaching implications which surely must be abhorrent to all Australians who seek to protect the rights of individuals. In our legal system it is assured that any accused are innocent until proven guilty, regardless of colour, race or creed. One has to ask what the legal implications are if the hangings go ahead. Prior to the media clampdown Australian audiences watching the news would have seen many crowds, sometimes numbering in the thousands, and incidents resulting in some gruesome deaths. Surely if this judgment is upheld, all members of such crowds could be declared guilty. The legal ramifications alone are enormous. The possibilities for repression in those circumstances are horrendous. I believe that we have to ask what our relationship is to the Government of South Africa, which promotes, supports and attempts to proselytise others to the advantages of the apartheid system. I believe that the Australian Government has shown amazing inconsistency in respect of its policy on South Africa. It really is a `now you see me, now you don't' policy which reeks of double standards. I ask honourable senators to remember the episode of the rebel cricketers when they visited South Africa in 1985-86 and the threat of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to have their tax returns scrutinised. Later there was the highly personal attack on leading cricketers, particularly Kim Hughes. Honourable senators will remember the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade talking about blood money. However, at this moment we are awaiting calls from Mr Hayden and the Australian Government for clemency for the Sharpeville six who, undoubtedly, are direct victims of the apartheid system. I remind honourable senators also of the simultaneous decision to grant visas for experts from the South African gold industry so that they can visit Australia. I asked a question of Senator Button about this yesterday. At that time he defended that decision to grant visas to allow these experts to attend a conference. He said: . . . given South Africa's position as the world's major gold producer, the Government accepts that representation from that country is desirable and appropriate. Senator Button —Read it in context, will you. You had alleged that they were businessmen and I just made the point that they were geologists. Senator MACKLIN —As Senator Button objects, I will read the entire answer. He stated: Senator Macklin asked me a question today about participation by South Africans at a bicentennial gold conference in Melbourne on 18 to 20 May. As I recall Senator Macklin's question, it was suggested that a large number of South Africans will participate, and that most of the participants are executives of gold mining companies. I am advised-and at this stage I am giving limited information only-that the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs is aware of about 50 applications from South African mining experts, mostly academics and technical experts, to participate in the conference. All of these applications are being considered on a case by case basis in accordance with the Australian Government's policy of limiting official and other contact with South Africa. However, given South Africa's position as the world's major gold producer, the Government accepts that representation from that country is desirable and appropriate. Would it not, in fact, be more desirable and appropriate at this time to stand up to the South African Government's actions and make a concerted effort, by whatever means we can, to have those six people saved from the gallows on Friday? I urge the Government to withdraw the visas immediately-as I have requested in my motion-to demonstrate quite directly that on this occasion and in regard to this issue we will make a further retaliation over and above other actions already taken by the Government, for example, in regard to Qantas flights. I urge that we take a particular action linked to a particular event. This would show the South African Government that such matters are of enormous concern to all people in Australia and that we do not want visits from South African people. We should demonstrate that we do not intend to go through the channels of government to government recognition of people by offering visas to those who apply for them but that we will not allow them to come to our country either at this time or next week when this particular action has taken place. Such a concrete proposal as I have suggested in my motion would be a direct action in regard to this issue. In the past the Government has singled out certain groups for sanctions. We are now asking the Government to single out another group for sanctions. In the past Australian sportsmen have been singled out. We are asking that white South African gold industry executives be singled out for sanction. Senator Button —Not executives. You keep saying that. That is a very comforting word to you, is it not? Senator MACKLIN —All right, the white elite in the gold industry then-the geologists, the technical experts. I am quite sure that none of them is short of a quid. I am sure that none of them lives in the types of conditions in which the blacks in South Africa live. Regardless of the standing of white Australian cricketers, we were happy to seek some types of sanctions against them. Regardless of the standing of these white South African mining experts and technicians, why are we not willing to seek some sanctions against them? We are seeking a specific sanction for a specific purpose. We are asking for sanctions with regard to this particular item because of the importance of the gold industry to the South African economy, the obvious importance of those people who are coming here and the importance of the conference to the South African economy. We are not seeking sanctions against people who are looking at the marble industry, as some people have done in recent times. We are not asking for sanctions against rope manufacturers who have come here in recent times. We are asking for these sanctions now because this is occurring now. We are asking for them now also because these people are connected with the gold industry which is so pertinent to the industrial health of South Africa. This is a very pertinent group of people against whom we can show our displeasure and the displeasure of the Australian community. I do not believe that the Government should fear in any way hurting the feelings of anybody in South Africa or upsetting anybody in South Africa. If the Government does hold such fears, it should weigh them against the feelings and concerns of the families of the people who are about to be hanged. We in this place allot a lot of time to the discussion of all sort of matters. Indeed, we allotted a great deal of time this morning to the discussion of the feelings of someone who had been affronted by words said about him and the possible legal action that could have arisen out of that. We spent an enormous amount of time discussing that matter because that person is a citizen of Australia. It is to our credit that we are willing to spend time on those issues in an effort to uphold individual rights in this country. As a community, as a parliament, as a chamber, we have to make some type of response to such situations-not just words; we need to take some type of action. If the Government and the Opposition are not willing to accept the third part of my motion, which deals with the type of action that should be taken, I plead with them to suggest some appropriate, concrete action that we as a parliament, incorporating all of the political parties, can vote on and endorse. We do not need just more words. Knowing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, I am quite sure that he has used his eloquence in this situation. I am not saying that in any cynical way. I am quite sure that he has done so because I know the type of person he is. He would be feeling very deeply and very personally about this matter. He has done all that he can. I am now urging that we do more and that we take some concrete action. Although I have not consulted my colleagues about this, I am sure that they would be quite willing to support any amendment to my motion which substituted some other concrete action upon which all of the parties in this chamber could agree. I urge the Government and the Opposition to come up with a proposal. Let us not, at the end of this debate, delete the last paragraph of my motion and merely add more words, because more words are not what is needed at this time. More words, in addition to those that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade or anybody else has put forward, will not save those six people from being hanged on Friday. Let us try to come up with some concrete proposal that may put more pressure on the South African Government. Unfortunately, the likelihood is that we will not be successful; but let us not say that we have not tried to actually save those six lives that are now at stake in South Africa as a result of the abominable apartheid system. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.35) —The Government will support paragraphs (a) and (b) of Senator Macklin's motion but not paragraph (c). That is to say, we will be doing what he asked us a minute ago not to do. I want to explain why we will be doing that. I will be asking for the motion to be divided into the three separate paragraphs when the question is put. Nobody has a monopoly on concern about the proposed hanging of six blacks in connection with an incident at Sharpeville. I personally am against capital punishment wherever it occurs. I am particularly against it when it happens to be in respect of an alleged offence which is, I believe, unknown to a proper system of justice. I am particularly against it in the political and racial context of South Africa. I share Senator Macklin's view that the proposed hanging is for political reasons of the most unworthy kind. I do not want to add to what Senator Macklin has said about those matters, except to say that one very much shares that concern. I suppose that where we differ is that Senator Macklin says, `Let us stand up and stop the hangings'. The sad fact is that we can stand up here and pass any motion we like but we will not stop the hangings if the South African Government has made up its mind about this issue. Senator Macklin warned us against using more words. I share his concern about the lack of efficacy of words in a situation such as this. That same comment applies to the third paragraph of his motion as he applied it to us: it is just a question of not using more words. I come now to why we differ from Senator Macklin on this issue. I want to get on the record a number of statements about the Australian Government's attitude to this question and actions which have been specifically taken by the Australian Government. The Australian Government first made representations to the South African Government on 11 December 1987, calling for clemency for the six defendants on humanitarian grounds, expressing concern at the severity of the sentences and stressing that an act of clemency by the State President would be interpreted as a gesture of good will and could make an important contribution to internal stability in South Africa. Numerous appeals for clemency have included one made on 1 February by the meeting in Lusaka of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on Southern Africa, of which Mr Hayden is a member. Those expressions of concern made in December last year and February this year-the second by Commonwealth Foreign Ministers-have apparently had no effect on the South African Government, because the decision to proceed with the hangings has been announced since that time. The Foreign Ministers expressed distress at the imposition of death sentences even though it had not been proved that any of the six contributed causally to the death of the deceased. The Foreign Ministers said that the executions, if proceeded with, would only increase bitterness at a time when the need for breaking South Africa's cycle of violence was paramount. Thirdly, they said that it would be a setback for all who were working to bring about a peaceful resolution of South Africa's problems. Even at this stage, on 16 March, the Government hopes that there will be some recognition of that appeal. On 15 March Mr Hayden made the appeal to which Senator Macklin refers in his motion, asking that the death sentence be commuted and again reiterating the views which he had put on 11 December and which were put by the Committee of Foreign Ministers in February. Mr Hayden made the point that Australia was strongly opposed in principle to the death penalty but he said in this case it was particularly unacceptable. None of the six had been directly involved in the murder with which they had been charged. He went on to make some points about the likely exacerbation of a volatile political environment if these death sentences were to be proceeded with. Again, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) made the point that this would only convince some South Africans that peaceful change was no longer a realistic possibility in that country. Subsequently, the Australian Ambassador also made representations to the South African Government. There are some who follow the logic, if we can call it that-the way out logic if they expressed it further than Senator Macklin's argument-that in order to put pressure on South Africa we should have no ambassador there at all, and who might express that view. It is not something which the Australian Government agrees with. I suppose that the departure point from the motion which Senator Macklin has moved and which we and the Opposition readily acceded to being brought on, for the reason that we share the concern, is as to what we should do about the essential policy issue in connection with South Africa. I just want to make it clear that the Australian Government, in concert with other governments-that is to say, on agreed rules-has imposed a general policy of not issuing visitor visas in South Africa to South African citizens, residents or visitors. Senator Macklin's motion refers to the 100 South African gold experts who are likely to come to this conference later this year. The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has no real idea, but it estimates that it is probably fewer than 50. I am not making a point about this-- Senator Macklin —They said that up to 100 would be all right. Senator BUTTON —I said that the Department has no idea because people from all over the world apply for visas to come to events such as this. The Australian Government's policy is one of not issuing visas except in certain circumstances. That policy, together with other governments' policies, is an expression of our concern about apartheid. It is designed not to frustrate the needs of South African individuals but only to inconvenience them. They are treated quite separately from citizens of other countries. To go further than that, it might be seen as requiring visitors policy to reflect a number of international issues of concern to the government of the day. For example, we could have a different visitors policy in respect of Russian citizens because of Russia's involvement in Afghanistan. We could have a different visa policy for Cubans because of Cuba's involvement in Angola. We could have a different visitors policy for citizens of the United States of America because of the United States Government's mining of a port in Nicaragua. We could have a different visa policy for Chilean visitors for a variety of reasons. We could have a different visa policy for the Chinese because of actions taken in Tibet, or for Vietnamese in respect of actions taken in Kampuchea. That might seem attractive to Senator Powell, who I think interjected, `Hear, hear!', but it is not a matter which any government could contemplate seriously. It is not a matter which could be contemplated by any serious government. More than that, it is far from clear that penalising individuals for foreign affairs policy purposes is a sound and equitable approach because of the sorts of examples to which I have just referred. Let me return to the nub of the matter. There is a very sad and tragic situation in South Africa which is about to be made worse by these proposed hangings. That is a matter of great concern and about which I understand the Democrats' motion. The next step is to say, `We will make a gesture about that. We have an issue here. We will capitalise on that concern by saying that the Australian Government should give a knee-jerk reaction and say that, at a conference to take place in August, no South Africans will be permitted to attend'. I think that is wrong in terms of policy; I think it is wrong because it is knee-jerk; and it is wrong because it will have absolutely no effect. It may well damage our standing as a country in terms of consistent policy making and consistent guidelines about these issues with which we are in agreement with other countries, and that is most important. Senator Macklin attacked this Government for, as he puts it, its hypocrisy, and other governments for their hypocrisy, in relation to South Africa. But let me say one thing which I am sure he will recognise. This Government is not particularly admired and its predecessor was not particularly admired by the ruling South African Government because of the stance which we have taken and which the Fraser Government took on a variety of issues. We have not been particularly admired in South Africa and that is something of which I am intensely proud and of which I am sure Senator Chaney, as Leader of the Opposition, is also proud. But to get into this position of auctioning issues, trying to solve a very serious problem like this with a solution which is a knee-jerk, which I believe will produce no effect and will be a demonstrable stunt response, is no solution at all. As I said earlier, this Senate cannot go too far in its condemnation of the death penalty in a situation like this; in its condemnation of apartheid in South Africa and these sorts of consequences of apartheid. It cannot go too far in its condemnation of extraordinary offences, such as the offence with which these people have been charged. It cannot go too far in any of those things. But to play politics and link that up with the proposed conference in Melbourne at which possibly 50 out of 1,000 delegates will come from South Africa, and to say, `We will punish these people and, therefore, perhaps produce a result in South Africa', is kidding ourselves and not making a contribution to a very important and serious policy debate. It is for that reason that we will not vote for and support the third proposition in Senator Macklin's motion. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.48) —I wish to speak to this motion on behalf of the Opposition, though again, like the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), not at great length because there is a high degree of common ground on the matters which are raised, although on this occasion the Opposition is of the same view as the Government with respect to opposing the third paragraph of the motion moved by Senator Macklin today. The motion is in two clear parts. The first two paragraphs state: (a) condemn the South African Government for its decision to go ahead with the hanging of six black South Africans for the murder of a black municipal councillor despite the fact that the Appeals Court has accepted that there is no proof that the six had contributed to the councillor's death; (b) further condemns the South African Government for ignoring appeals for clemency from Australia's Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, and from countries such as Britain and the United States; It is on those paragraphs that there is common ground between the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. I think the facts relating to that matter have been sufficiently outlined by Senator Macklin, who has referred the Senate to the elements of the judgment of the Appeals Court. The circumstances are such that I believe most Australians would be thoroughly disturbed by the proposition that these people are to be hanged. I suppose on the other hand it is unusual that a national parliament should debate the criminal law processes of another government. The reality is that there is a plethora of countries around the world which have systems of criminal law and government which are utterly repugnant to us. If I may make a personal comment, my only reservation about the unanimity with which we are approaching these elements of the motion is that I believe that many South Africans feel, understandably, that horrific acts occur in other parts of the world, including other parts of Africa, that do not receive the same condemnation. I simply mark that because I do believe that one element of the debate which needs continuous re-examination is the question of consistency. It has always been a personal view of mine that we are prepared to condemn South Africa, very properly, for a regime that is unique because of its institutionalised racism. However, pretty horrifying action that occurs in other areas escapes general scrutiny. I mention that because I think it does disturb many Australians that there appears to them to be a lack of concern about other equally abhorrent elements. It is worth stressing in this debate that the condemnation of apartheid in South Africa is a long-standing matter that has crossed party lines. It has flowed through the whole of the period of the present Opposition. I refer the Senate to the lengthy statement made by the then Leader of the Opposition on 19 August 1985, which sets out in some detail the general approach which the Opposition has. That statement has been reaffirmed over recent years. It reads: The central issue in South African affairs is how to achieve radical reform with the minimum of violence and disruption within the South African community. The reforms required are essentially two: the abolition of apartheid and equal treatment before the law of all South Africans, and power sharing among all members of the South African community. I simply reaffirm the concerns which have been continually expressed by the Opposition, as were expressed when it formed the Government of this country. I share the very deep reservations which have been expressed in this chamber and elsewhere about the procedures that have led to half a dozen people facing death by execution in circumstances where it appears quite clear that they were not directly involved in the murder for which they were tried. Where then is the area of difference? The difference is one that has at times existed between the Government and the Opposition, rather than between the Opposition, the Government and the Australian Democrats, as applies today. When we defined our position in 1985-and I stress that this position has been reaffirmed-we said: It is against the achievement of the objective of abolishing apartheid that the effects of the imposition of economic sanctions must be judged. The coalition believes that the hard truth is that sanctions are counterproductive and will not bring about the abolition of apartheid. Instead of encouraging the South African Government to implement reforms, the application of sanctions is all too likely to have precisely the opposite effect. The more conservative elements in South Africa will be reinforced in their opposition to reform. Sanctions are likely to become the external enemy, against which the South African Government and the white community, feeling increasingly isolated, will unite. Later in the statement the Opposition said: The coalition does not take the view that in no circumstances should economic sanctions be imposed. Sanctions have a role in international affairs and the coalition does not exclude in advance of events, their use, whether against South Africa or any other country. It should be noted that the coalition has supported a trade embargo on arms sales to South Africa. It is pointless, however, to speculate about the circumstances in which economic sanctions might be imposed against a country, and unwise to make a commitment in advance of events. It is far better to make judgments on the facts of the day rather than on possibilities of the future. In light of that statement I think we have to confront the proposition which the Australian Democrats have put before us today, which is that we should support the third paragraph of the motion, which calls on the Australian Government to withdraw visas to the 100 South African gold experts as a practical demonstration of Australia's opposition to the apartheid system which allows this obscenity. The position of the Opposition is that we do not believe that paragraph should be supported. Like the Government, we do not see it as something that will be effective. It may be little more than words-and Senator Macklin has asked the Opposition to do more than advocate additional words-but I think the view which Senator Macklin has, that words alone will not be efficacious, is in fact no different from our view that this gesture-which will simply deny Australia the participation of the South African gold experts in the Australian intellectual life and, to some extent, the economy-would not in any sense be an effective strike against South Africa. It seems to me to be rather more a strike against Australia than against South Africa. Therefore, it seems to have the same problem of being a token gesture. Certainly that would be some action, but though it might well increase the degree of resentment which is felt, it is unlikely to put any real pressure on the South African Government. For that reason in my view the proposition which has been put by the Australian Democrats in the third paragraph should not be supported. I have handed to the Clerk an amendment which would have the simple effect of deleting paragraph (c) from the motion. If it transpires that the motion is dealt with in paragraphs, the Opposition will be happy with that procedure and will vote against that paragraph. To avoid any slippage in the proceedings, I formally move at this stage for the deletion of paragraph (c) on the basis that we will vote accordingly if the matter comes to a vote on the motion as a whole. The only other thing I wish to say in this debate is that the fact that the Government declines to support paragraph (c) of the Australian Democrats' motion, namely the withdrawal of visas to visiting experts, is a factor that should be remembered in future debates. I for one am sick of the proposition that any failure to support sanctions, either in general or in particular, represents a statement that one is in some way soft on apartheid or is in favour of apartheid, or is opposed to any real reform in South Africa. That is certainly not the view of the Opposition. The selective approach that we have adopted is one based on our belief as to what is best or most likely to achieve results in South Africa; that is, results that will move South Africa towards being a more liberal society, one in which there is more rather than less genuine power sharing. The Opposition has never taken the view that the substitution of one non-democratic form of government for another could in any sense be regarded as a significant advance. The simple point I make is that on this occasion the Government is itself displaying selectivity. I simply remind Government senators of that fact. Far too often in discussion on these matters cheap debating points are made which do not reflect the genuine concerns felt within the Opposition, and do not reflect the genuine motivation of the Opposition for the stance it has taken. The fact is that this Government is selective. Indeed, we would see the Government's actions in providing approximately $100m of aid in circumstances which are well known in Africa, and its comparative neglect of some areas of greater local concern to us, as not being in Australia's best interests and not showing a proper appreciation of the priorities that we believe should be accorded in Australia's foreign aid. The Government has often adopted positions which smack of a degree of consistency which they have not in fact had. I think its preparedness to oppose the proposal of the Australian Democrats today is a simple reminder that the situation is rather more complex than the debate that takes place here and elsewhere sometimes admits. I therefore support the condemnation of the South African Government over the hanging of the six black South Africans for the murder of a black municipal councillor, despite the fact that the appeals court has accepted that there is no proof that the six contributed to the councillor's death. For the reasons I have indicated and for the reasons which were broadly expressed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate I indicate that we also will oppose the third leg of the motion. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.01) —I support the motion moved by Senator Macklin for the Australian Democrats, which calls on the Senate to condemn the South African Government over the planned execution this Friday, 18 March-two days away-of six black Africans who are known as the Sharpeville six and who have been referred to during this debate as six black South Africans and in various other ways but who, I remind the Senate, are six human beings. Those people have names, and I would like to put them on the record. They are young black South Africans by the names of Duma Joshua Khumalo, aged 26; Mojulefa Reginald Sefatsa, aged 30; Reid Malebo Mokoena, aged 22; Theresa Ramashaemola, aged 24, who on Friday will become the first South African woman to be executed; Oupa Moses Diniso, aged 30; and Francis Don Mokhesi, aged 29. They are South African human beings to be executed on Friday. I do not believe that anyone in this chamber, in all honesty, could not but support the moral issue here. That not one of the numerous courts of law that have heard this case has found that any one of the six actually committed the crime of which they have been accused and for which they will be executed on Friday-that these six young black South Africans are to be hanged in two days time in such circumstances-is a matter of great seriousness, and I believe that all in this chamber should support this motion. A further part of the motion calls on the Australian Government to withdraw visas for white South African goldmining representatives planning to visit Melbourne in May to participate in the international conference Bicentennial Gold 88, a conference to be hosted by the Victorian Department of Industry, Technology and Resources and which is now only some eight weeks away. Given the Australian Labor Party's undertaking in its 1986 platform to `base its policy (on South Africa) on the isolation of the apartheid regime' and to `refuse entry or transit to South African sporting teams and individual amateur and professional sports players representing South Africa', I believe that the inhuman behaviour of the South African Government in the case of these six young black South Africans demands that the Australian Government do all that it can to make its outrage and the outrage of the Australian community known to the South African Government. One immediate way of doing this is to refuse visas to these South African goldmining representatives. I will have a little more to say about the response which we have heard so far in this debate to that part of Senator Macklin's motion. The Australian Democrats applaud the recent and last minute direct pleas for clemency by the British and the United States governments as well as those by Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Bill Hayden, and Australia's Ambassador to South Africa, Mr Birch. The case of the Sharpeville six has been recognised and taken up by other Western democracies, and many voices around the world have been raised. Even within South Africa, not surprisingly, Helen Suzman, the veteran white anti-apartheid campaigner, called on the Government to grant a reprieve. She and Colin Elgin, leader of the white liberal Progressive Federal Party were instrumental in having a meeting last week, which was unsuccessful from the point of view of any clemency. We should know, too, that the delegates of the 97 countries attending the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) congress being held right now in Melbourne have also called on heads of government to make urgent representations to South Africa in an attempt to prevent the hangings. The ICFTU represents 87 million trade unionists around the world. A further reason for Australia to take the strongest possible action in condemning South Africa follows the recent very harsh actions taken by the racist South African Government to ban the nation's 17 known anti-apartheid groups from engaging in any political activity. These are a broad range of groups which include, for example, the Detainees Parents Support Committee. That banning action has been one of the more outrageous recent actions. Other groups to be covered by that ban are the Soweto Civic Association, which represents people in the country's largest black township and is behind the long- running rent boycott there, the Release Mandela Committee and other such committees, and the Congress of South African Trade Unions. That ban was followed by action by the church leaders in South Africa. We read in the Age of 2 March of the march which was led by church leaders, of the arrest of Bishop Tutu when he lead about 150 churchmen, who were stopped by police, `protesting at the . . . curbs on the anti-apartheid opposition groups'. Archbishop Tutu said that the clergymen represented about 12 million South Africans and that they were not the usual rabble rousers like himself and Dr Alan Boesak, President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and leader of the coloured branch of the Dutch Reformed Church. He said that a whole range of church leaders had now got behind those two front-runners and that opposition was building within South Africa to the highly repressive actions that the bannings represented. So, as has already been pointed out in this debate, the situation continues to get worse. Dr Alan Boesak himself has said of South Africa: What we are facing now is a situation in which every single action we can take has been criminalized. How dreadful it must be to be living in that kind of environment-something which it is probably very difficult for Australians, in our very free and open democracy, to understand. This most recent decision is quite clearly outrageous. We have read editorials all around this country condemning it, including editorials in the Canberra Times of 28 February and the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 February, part of which I think bears repeating. This banning of the remaining 17 anti-apartheid organisations, as the Sydney Morning Herald puts it, `will intensify racial conflict in South Africa and provoke further violence between the Government and its opponents'. Sometimes it is very difficult to understand the motivation behind all this. The comment was made earlier in the debate, I think by Senator Button, that calls have been made for increased pressure. I point out that the Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA), in its response to the bannings, called on the Federal Government immediately to downgrade the diplomatic mission in South Africa by recalling the Ambassador. ACFOA says that it believes that we know what is happening in South Africa, that we do not need an ambassador to listen to the cries of the black majority for democracy and freedom. Further, it says that what we need is renewed international effort to end apartheid and that Australia should maintain its strong stand against apartheid by applying this diplomatic sanction. One of the things that the Democrats are trying to do in moving this motion, particularly paragraph (c) of the motion, is to have some action taken, to have something concrete done, other than simple condemnation. To that extent, we line up with ACFOA, which has also made its call for some specific action. Returning to the specific issue of the planned execution of the six young black South Africans, I note, as Senator Macklin did in his contribution, that it is pointed out on page 83 of the court judgment that the executions will take place in spite of the fact that-and it is worth quoting again-the judge said: . . . for the purposes of my judgment . . . it has not been proved in the case of any six accused convicted of murder that their conduct had contributed (as a cause) to the death of the deceased. I think that is what we really must remember. It is almost impossible to believe in this world in which we live that six people will die in 1988 even though the judge concerned has said that they do not have any direct responsibility for the crime of which they have been accused. This doctrine of common purpose, as it has been defined, is absolutely abhorrent. The Australian Democrats believe that some action must be taken. A good deal has already been said in this debate about that doctrine. I would simply like to place on record my abhorrence to it. As has been pointed out in the Canberra Times, critics of the judgment have said there are far-reaching implications. It is horrific to think that, if a man is killed in a confrontation involving a crown 1,000 strong, any or all of those present might be found guilty of murder and be hanged. As I said, the Australian Democrats are calling for action, not just for words. I would have to object to Senator Button's accusation that what we are doing here is calling for some sort of knee-jerk reaction. When our attention was drawn to the fact that a substantial group of South African delegates were expected to attend a conference in Victoria, we investigated the situation. Right at the beginning of this month-some two weeks ago-we called for visas to be refused. This is not something that we dreamed up this morning or even this week. It is an issue that we took up once it was drawn to our attention. We are merely reiterating, by way of Senator Macklin's motion, the call that Senator Haines made on 3 March for the Government to refuse visas to this group of South African delegates who want to attend the conference in Victoria. I would like to say a little more about this proposal. This conference, which will take place in Melbourne in May, some eight weeks away, is a bicentennial event. This year we are celebrating our 200 years as a nation. I, for one, would not want to be celebrating with people from South Africa in the knowledge of the sort of thing that we have been talking about in this debate. As a Victorian, I find it quite abhorrent that the documentation for this conference includes a specific invitation issued by the Victorian Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, an invitation which continues to apply to South African delegates to this conference. I believe that it is pertinent that the conference is concerned with the gold industry. This is a significant opportunity for us to take some action which would clearly signify our abhorrence of the apartheid system. The gold industry is one of the major industries in South Africa and we can have some impact on it if we can affect it in any way. Of course, the gold mining industry is one of the exploitative industries of South Africa. We know that the history of South Africa is one of exploitation, not just of resources but also of black human beings. It is a history of disgrace. I think this in itself is a further reason why the action we are proposing would be far more than simply symbolic. This action would make very many statements about how we feel about links with South Africa, about any kind of succour or support which might be gained or be characterised as having come from this country, whether or not that is our intention. I think we need to be aware that we are not in control of the way in which actions taken or not taken by our country or any other country outside South Africa are portrayed within South Africa. There are enough anecdotes available to demonstrate that quite often there is distortion by South African citizens of the sort of support that exists in the rest of the world for South Africa. As a resident of Victoria, and as a Victorian parliamentarian in this Senate, I make my own call to Minister Fordham and, indeed, to the Premier of Victoria, specifically to withdraw the invitation to any South African delegates in the light of all of the points which I have already made in this debate since it is obvious that their Federal colleagues are not prepared to make it impossible for those delegates to attend that conference. I would like to pick up a few of the points that have been made in the debate, particularly those put forward by Senator Button. The honourable senator said that nobody has a monopoly of concern, not wanting anybody to believe that the Government does not feel as strongly as the Australian Democrats do in spite of the fact that the Government will not support this motion in its entirety. Senator Button is quite correct; the Australian Democrats do not claim a monopoly of concern. But there is one area in which the Government, and Senator Button, as the Leader of the Government in this chamber, do have a monopoly: they have the power to act. That is one of the reasons for the Democrats' motion, which calls upon the Government to act and to take a specific action-that is, to withdraw the visas for a significant group of South African delegates to a significant international conference under our bicentennial banner in the State of Victoria. Senator Button says that we should not punish people for the actions of government. But we, of all people, must never forget that governments and parliaments are made up of people who represent the rest of the population. There is an old saying that we get the kind of government we deserve. So to argue that 50, 100 or whatever South African gold industry experts should not be denied a visa to enter Australia in order to attend a conference is to forget the fact that the Government does represent the people. Of course, in South Africa the Government represents only a vast minority of people, who happen to be the very white people we are asking, through this motion, to be targeted. Our Government also ignores the fact that attendance by South Africans at this conference will, as I said, benefit the gold mining industry in South Africa and thereby allow some sort of domestic kudos to be given to the government of the day. Perhaps financial benefit will come from the increased expertise of those people who want to attend the conference. The South African Government is to hang six young black South Africans, not because they have committed a crime-and that is clear-but purely for political reasons. So why should we not specifically ban from entry to this country for political reasons those gold mining experts? Botha is trying to deflect right wing criticism of him from within his own country with the upcoming elections in mind by killing six innocent young people. To condemn this action, as the Government and the Opposition are prepared to do by supporting parts (a) and (b) of the motion, but not to apply a penalty is effectively not to condemn. The Government and the Opposition are saying `We do not like what you are doing very much, but we do not dislike it enough to punish any of you, to punish your Government through the people who elected it-or at least, just a handful of those people'. It is not even the equivalent of a slight slap over the wrist. It is a really hypocritical exercise and a cowardly attempt to have a bit each way-to talk tough, but not to act tough. Surely there comes a time when diplomacy is not enough. If the lives of six innocent young people do not mean that that time has come, I am not sure what would cause the Government or the Opposition to believe that that time had come. Denying visas to a group of white South African gold mining and technical experts-people employed in an industry where the very worst elements of apartheid have always been apparent-is a small enough action, but at least it is action and that is really what the Australian Democrats are calling for today. To support the first two parts of the motion, condemning the actions of the South African Government and then joining together yet again-the Labor, Liberal and National parties-to oppose the third part which calls for a concrete action for which the Democrats have been calling since the beginning of March when the issue was first drawn to our attention, is quite pathetic. We have had calls from members of the Government and the Opposition in the past that visas be denied to a variety of people, as Senator Macklin pointed out earlier, including Australian sports people. On the other hand, we have calls to stop Ian Paisley, Palestine Liberation Organisation representatives and others from coming to this country. From time to time visas are denied to people whose presence is anathema to Australians for one reason or another because of the beliefs they espouse or the actions that it is believed they might take. This case is really no different, except that by not acting we are condemning six innocent South Africans to death because Government and Opposition senators are not prepared to do more than make noises about the hangings. Even if, as Senator Button suggests, the action of withdrawing these visas might not be able to save these six people, we should bear in mind that it is quite likely-far more likely if we act than if we do not-that on some future occasion the abhorrent, racist Botha Government might think a second time before taking such an action and denying clemency which has been asked and begged for for these six young South Africans. It will be a vast disappointment to the Australian Democrats and many others in the community who are extremely concerned about inaction in relation to South Africa that once again this Government and the Opposition coalition have joined together and failed to support action against the abhorrent regime in South Africa. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.24) —I rise to support the words of my Leader, Senator Chaney, in this debate-that is, to support specifically parts (a) and (b) of Senator Macklin's motion, which refer to the intention of the South African Government to hang six black South Africans on Friday for murder. I oppose part (c) of Senator Macklin's motion, which deals with a different matter-that is, the question of visas for certain South African gold experts who are coming to Australia, I understand, for some conference in the near future. As background I stand here as a member of a party which I think has been an historical leader in the fight against apartheid in South Africa. I mention the former Prime Minister, who attained a world status in this area not only when he was Prime Minister of this country but also through his work on the Eminent Persons Group for the Commonwealth-- Senator Macklin —First class work. Senator HILL —As Senator Macklin says, he did some first class work. From that background I want to address these issues. In doing so I must first try to qualify, to some extent, what Senator Powell has said in relation to the circumstances of this crime. I do not want to put great weight upon it because I and my Party are opposed to these intended hangings. Nevertheless, Senator Powell did say some things that seemed, as I read at least parts of the judgment of the South African appeal court, not to be fair conclusions. Senator Powell said that they had `no direct responsibility for the crime'. She said they had committed no crime. Finally, she said that six innocent South Africans were condemned to death. On reading the appeal court judgment I do not think that those are fair conclusions to reach. I remind Senator Powell that the trial judge in this matter concluded, and it was accepted by the court of appeal, that in respect of six of those on trial-there were originally eight defendants, two of whom were acquitted-each of them had the intention to kill the deceased. In relation to the first accused-and I will mention only a couple of them-the court of appeal found: He was one of the persons who grabbed hold of the deceased near the fence between the houses of the deceased and Maile, and who wrestled with the deceased for the possession of his pistol. He was also the person who threw the first stone at the deceased as he was crossing the fence, which struck him on the head and felled him. In relation to the second accused, the court of appeal said: He was one of the mob which stoned the deceased's house before the first arrival of the police on the scene. He himself threw a stone which struck a window on the right-hand side of the house and broke it. The judgment of the appeal court continues. What I am trying to say by quoting those findings is that these people have been convicted of this crime because they were actively part of a crowd that killed this black man in most horrific circumstances. They were therefore deemed to have had a common purpose. The facts of the case as accepted by the court in the first instance and by the appeal establish terms of that common purpose which I think would be opposed in the most strident terms by all in this place. Having said that, I go on to deal with the broader aspects of the debate and what is happening in South Africa. Mr President, the debate on South Africa, as you are well aware, has been most frustrating. Those of us who have taken an interest in it and have used every opportunity given to us to urge reform towards the abolition of apartheid have been most frustrated. From time to time we have witnessed steps, albeit small steps, which we believe have been in the right direction only to be then disappointed by what seem to us to be backward steps-often frustratingly unnecessary backward steps. We have seen a small but positive step forward towards dismantling some aspects of apartheid such as in sport and places of entertainment. We know that now almost all South African theatres have been fully integrated. We have seen reform in the areas of hotels and restaurants. At least now, under 1985 amendments to the liquor Act, racial discrimination in hotels has been abolished. We have seen some small steps forward in recreation. We know that the majority of local authorities have opened libraries, museums, parks and beaches to all races. We know of reforms in relation to interracial marriage and interracial sex, with the bans on interracial marriage and on interracial sex having been abolished. There have been some small improvements in relation to population settlement-we know there has been suspension of enforced resettlements-and also in relation to property ownership. I could go on; but that is not really the debate today. What I am trying to say is that we witnessed these small steps forward only to be frustrated by what seem to have been significant steps backwards. I suppose in recent years that we really witnessed the most significant steps backwards in 1985 and 1986. None of us will forget the scenes emanating from South Africa of violence in townships that we saw on our televisions and of what seemed to be unnecessarily responsive violence by the authorities, the literally thousands who were then held without trial, and the hundreds of children who were held without trial-in some cases for many months without their parents even being able to find out their state of welfare or even in which establishment they were being held. We witnessed those horrific scenes, as you will recall, Mr President. Night after night we witnessed schools being closed in response to such violence. Then we were finally frustrated by what seems to be the traditional ultimate resort of the South Africans when they are receiving international unfavourable publicity, which is a further clampdown on the media. We found that the world's witnessing of this abhorrent behaviour was suddenly forcibly curbed and we were told that we could no longer witness what had happened. That was in 1985 and 1986, which will go down as bad years in South Africa's history. Those years were followed by 1987 which, again, I believe gave us some reason for cautious hope. Certainly, it was a time of more restrained activity in South Africa. There was less violence, but, of course, we know that it was under a national state of emergency and that the police and the military were still in the schools, so how much of that restraint emanated from a change of attitude is questionable; nevertheless, things on the surface appeared to be more peaceful. In that environment South Africa went into the May 1987 election. We were pleased to the extent that the ruling party, the National Party under state President Botha, went to the people in that campaign with a dual plank: the first part, which is most important to this debate, was a willingness to negotiate with the leaders of all South Africa's communities towards a new system of power sharing under which no one group could dominate the others. The other half of the plank, which is consistent with this debate, was a strict enforcement of law and order to protect the stability of the country. Nevertheless, the President did go to the people with the prospect of moderate but continuing reform. We were pleased that in the election campaign there were such independent candidates as Dr Worrall standing, which in effect supported the Progressive Federal Party (PFP), which was seeking reform to take place at a more rapid pace. As you will recall, Mr President, the election result was that Botha was returned with an increased majority. That was disappointing in that the PFP was in effect nearly wiped out. The Independents, including Dr Worrall, lost; so those who were advocating a faster pace for reform were unsuccessful. We then had to rely on Mr Botha's commitment to the people before the election. A worrying aspect that also became relevant to the circumstances occurring in South Africa at the moment was the increased support for the pro-partition Conservative Party of South Africa, which also occurred in that election. In 1987 we also saw further movement in what became known as the KwaZulu/Natal Indaba, which we who look for reform in South Africa saw as a possible precedent towards some type of government by multiracial entity, a way in which the Zulu tribe in South Africa and the province of Natal could join together and find a formula whereby majority rule could prevail, with what all of us have seen as necessary in South Africa, that is, certain guaranteed rights for minority groups. We were hopeful that this might have acted as some guide to some continued reform in the future. Unfortunately, that does not seem to have come to pass. It seems to have fallen, partly because the plan was not accepted by some of the national groups within the community, and also because of concern expressed by the National Party that it allowed for majority rule. I suppose that in that concern expressed by the National Party we should have seen the sign that democracy in our terms is still a long way off in South Africa. So we saw progress and then we seemed to lose it. Also last year we saw progress in initiatives taken by the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa. That was a successful attempt in the first instance to get together outlawed African National Congress leaders with leading academics and others from South Africa to try again to find a formula, to use their words, to achieve a breakthrough for hope. They met, discussed it and reached conclusions that a non-racial democracy was desirable. But, unfortunately, as with so many other initiatives, they did not seem to be able to progress it further. So last year we had these examples of some hope, in each case to be followed only by some disappointment. That brings us to this year and the circumstances in which the Conservative Party and those most conservative Afrikaners have obviously increased their support within the white community of South Africa. We find that Mr Botha appears to feel that the pressure that they can bring to bear upon this Government should attach a greater weight than the reforms that he promised at the last election that he would introduce. So, unfortunately, this year we have seen a willingness by his Government to bow to these pressure groups and, therefore, his feeling of need for him to exhibit even greater strength by inhibiting what can be seen as steps towards multiracial democracy. We saw it only last month when out of the blue he and his Government banned some 17 different groups, trade union groups, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, together with some of the major black alternative political organisations, the United Democratic Front, and the Azanian People's Organisation. He banned their political operation and in effect put them out of operation for reasons that seem to relate simply to a need to assure the more conservative white community in South Africa that he is exhibiting strength. The tragedy in this is that those bodies offered further hope for reform along the democratic path. If non-violent groups, groups which exhibit non-violent protests and engage in non-violent political activity are banned, how else are they to demonstrate their cause other than through the method which we all find abhorrent-that is, violence? Needless to say, President Botha's actions in banning those groups were condemned around the world. As a matter of interest, they were condemned by many in South Africa, including the churches. The response of some of the churches in South Africa was courageous. Mr President, you will recall that they said immediately that they would step in and take the place of the banned organisations; they would, in effect, fill the gap and allow peaceful protests, peaceful democratic action, to take place through that means. The Government's immediate response was to ban their organisation which they call the Committee to Defend Democracy. Again, not even the churches could join together to engage in political activity; they were also to be banned. That brings us right up to date in terms of the environment in which the South African Government again intends to exhibit its strength this Friday. It intends to do what President Botha indicated at the last election-that is, to strongly enforce law and order. It will do so by hanging six blacks who have been convicted of murder. It is a distressing situation in that their death simply will put the cause of progress towards democracy and abolition of apartheid back another step. On each occasion on which a step is taken which quite reasonably enrages the black majority in South Africa-90 per cent of the community-their support for the mechanisms that President Botha claims to be wanting to establish is put back another step. The execution by hanging of these six people will not solve the violence that occurs in South Africa. A lessening of violence will be achieved only by a more democratic system, by allowing the various communities in South Africa to have a say and to make a contribution in government and in the processes that influence every aspect of their lives. With that can come greater respect for authority. With greater respect for authority can come greater respect, which has to be earned, for the enforcement authorities. With that can come a lessening of violence and, therefore, a society that should be more satisfactory to all South Africans. In those circumstances, the Opposition is pleased to join with others in this chamber in condemning what the South African Government plans to do. I suppose that what we are asking for is that State President Botha reconsider his decision not to reprieve these people. This is an opportunity for him to show a concrete sign that there can be a break in this violent tradition of South Africa. It is a sign that would be appreciated, I am sure, throughout the world. On this side of the chamber we have tried to adopt the carrot and stick approach to South Africa. We have supported the Gleneagles Agreement, for example. Where necessary, we have been willing to apply pressure when we think that it might produce a positive result. Also, we have been prepared for a little give and take, because if we do not give some credit where credit should be due, we lose an opportunity. I assure the South African authorities that in this circumstance where it has yet another opportunity to show that they are prepared to take a step away from violence, that they are prepared to reprieve these six people and say that this process of hangings that occurs so often in South Africa is not necessarily the best method of achieving an atmosphere that is conductive to democratic reform, they will receive the support and plaudits of those on this side of the House. In conclusion, we cannot see how banning South African gold experts will contribute in any way to the goal that we seek in this debate, and that is to invite and urge State President Botha to commute the sentences, thereby showing some tolerance and showing the world that there is another way, another direction, that South Africa can take. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(4.46) —I rise to present some information that has not appeared in the debate so far. The Australian Democrats' motion calls for the Australian Government to condemn the South African Government for the impending execution of six people as they say there is no proof that the six contributed to a councillor's death. They have quoted from the appeal court judge's judgment on that count. It could be that the appeal court judge was quoted out of context when he said: It has not been proved in the case of any of the six accused convicted of murder that their conduct has contributed causally to the death of the deceased. Undoubtedly he did say that, but when one reads and takes into account the full judgment of the court, one sees that the quote has been taken out of context. I wish to read the paragraph that is pertinent to the issue. It concerns the doctrine of causal connection which was examined in detail by the appeal court. The judgment states: In the present case, on the facts mentioned earlier, there can be no doubt, in my judgment, that the individual acts of each of the six accused convicted of murder manifested an active association with the acts of the mob which caused the death of the deceased. These accused shared a common purpose with the crowd to kill the deceased and each of them had the requisite dolus in respect of his death. Consequently the acts of the mob which caused the deceased's death must be imputed to each of these accused. Incidentally, I add that South Africa operates under roman law and not Westminster law, as we do. In coming to this conclusion the court applied the principles taken over from English law which have been part of South Africa's legal system for some time. It actually quoted the case Rex v. Ngcobo 1928 AD 372 as an early example of the principles involved. I bring that matter to the Senate's attention as to the first part of the Democrats' motion which is predicated on the fact that the appeal court has accepted that there is no proof that the six had contributed to the councillor's death. The story, as I get it from the speeches of the Democrats, is that an unruly mob approached the house of the mayor of Lekoa and torched the house to force him out. When he came out he had a gun which he fired once. He shot one of the attackers in the leg. He was then stoned to death. The first accused threw the first stone which felled the mayor. Another of the accused took the mayor's gun from him. The court transcript contains ample evidence and I hope that the Senate will allow me to incorporate it in Hansard. It is only a few pages in length. It is very pertinent in terms of associating each of the accused with the actual murder of the mayor of Lekoa. The story that has been presented here is that these six are innocent of all crime and that they are being hanged after a summary trial. It was claimed that they are being hanged for the electoral benefit of the National Party in South Africa so that it can show that it has not gone soft in its administration of the law. The second part of the motion states: Further condemns the South African Government for ignoring appeals for clemency from Australia's Foreign Minister, My Hayden, and from countries such as Britain and the US. It may well be that those countries have debated the issue as we have here today, without having the full text of what the appeal court said in relation to the casual connection between the accused and the mayor who was murdered. I think that if one had to think of a word to describe South Africa-the land, its climate, its jungles, its animals and its people-the word would have to be `brutal' because it is a brutal country. We must remember that South Africa is an African country. Our interpretation of things here is entirely different from how they would be interpreted over there. The reason given for the moving of the first part of the Australian Democrats' motion is not correct. It is based on a quote which was taken out of context. Similarly, part two of the motion could have been based on insufficient information on which to debate the subject. Of course, the Opposition is opposing part three of the motion. I seek leave to have a few pages of the transcript of the trial incorporated in Hansard so that everybody may read of the close association between the six accused and the death of the mayor of Lekoa. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Excerpt from the Court Case ``I turn now to the role played by each of the accused, as found by the trial Court, in the gruesome events outlined above. Although accused Nos 5 and 6 are not directly involved in the present enquiry, it will be convenient to include them in this survey. Accused No. 1 He was one of the persons who grabbed hold of the deceased near the fence between the houses of the deceased and Maile, and who wrestled with the deceased for the possession of his pistol. He was also the person who threw the first stone at the deceased as he was crossing the fence, which struck him on the head and felled him. (The first-mentioned finding was based on the observations of Mabuti, and the second on the observations of Mrs Dlamini. It was argued on behalf of accused No. 1 that there was a conflict between the evidence of Mabuti and that of Mrs Dlamini which could not be resolved, since Mabuti did not see the throwing of the stone by accused No. 1 and Mrs Dlamini did not see accused No. 1 grappling with the deceased. The trial Court considered this alleged conflict fully and carefully, as appears from the judgment of the trial Judge, and found that it did not exist. In my view the reasoning of the trial Court is unassailable. The fallacy in the argument for the accused is that it presupposes that either or both of the witnesses must be untruthful or unreliable simply because their observations did not coincide. Such an approach to the evidence is unsound. Mabuti and Mrs Dlamini were making their observations of fast-moving events from different vantage points, and there is no improbability inherent in postulating that accused No. 1, after having grappled with the deceased for the gun, moved off some paces and from there threw a stone at him. More-over, as the trial Judge pointed out, there was other evidence confirming the correctness of the observations of both witnesses. Some time after the events accused No. 1 took the police to the house of accused No. 3 with a view to finding the deceased's pistol. At that time the police did not know of accused No. 3's involvement in the affair. In fact accused No. 3 was in possession of the deceased's pistol, which he handed over to the police. This evidence, coupled with accused No. 1's false denial of it, showed that accused No. 1 knew that accused No. 3 had obtained possession of the pistol from the deceased and this confirms Mabuti's evidence that accused No. 1 was one of the group who wrestled with the deceased for the possession of the pistol. On the other hand, after the deceased had been felled by the first stone thrown at him, Mrs Dlamini heard him exclaim: ``Ja-ja, wat maak jy (What are you doing)?'' ``Ja-ja'' was the nickname of accused No. 1, but Mrs Dlamini did not know that, although she knew accused No. 1. This confirms her evidence that accused No. 1 threw the first stone that felled the deceased. In the result there is no reason for differing from the trial Court's findings that accused No. 1 grappled with the deceased for the possession of the pistol and that he was the man who threw the stone that felled the deceased.) Accused No. 2 He was one of the mob which stoned the deceased's house before the first arrival of the police on the scene. He himself threw a stone which struck a window on the right-hand side of the house and broke it. When the police arrived and dispersed the crowd, he was affected by the teargas used by the police. He went into a yard and washed his face. After the crowd had re-assembled, he rejoined it in front of the deceased's house. He saw that the deceased was standing outside his house. He saw that the house was on fire and that it was surrounded by many people. He threw a stone at the deceased. It struck the deceased on his back. When the police arrived again, he ran away. (The facts recited above appear from a confession made by accused No. 2, a letter written by him from prison to the Minister of Justice, and statements made by him to a police lieutenant in the course of pointing out certain places). Accused No. 3 He was one of the small group of men who caught hold of the deceased as he was running in the direction of Maile's house, and who wrestled with him for possession of his pistol. He was the man who in fact succeeded in taking the deceased's pistol away from him. (These findings of the trial Court rested on inference. There was no direct evidence that accused No. 3 was on the scene. Neither Mabuti nor Mrs Dlamini knew accused No. 3 and neither could identify him. The validity of the trial Court's inference was challenged in this Court. In brief, the evidence against accused No. 3 was as follows. On 9 November 1984 Detective Sergeant Wessels was taken by accused No. 1 to the house of accused No. 3. Wessels did not know where accused No. 3 lived; he was directed how to get there by accused No. 1. Accused No. 3 was pointed out by accused No. 1 to Wessels as the person who was presumably in possession of a pistol. Wessels asked accused No. 3 whether he had a fire-arm in his possession and the reply was affirmative. Accused No. 3 took a pistol from between some cardboard boxes, through an opening in the ceiling of his house, and handed it to Wessels. The pistol was exh 1 in the Court a quo. Accused No. 3 explained to Wessels that he had taken the pistol away from some children who were involved in riotous activities in the vicinity of the deceased's house on 3 September 1984. The pistol, exh 1, was proved to have belonged to the deceased. Apart from the fact that he admitted handing a pistol to Wessels, accused No. 3 denied the substance of Wessels' evidence. He said that he had told Wessels that he had only obtained the pistol on 4 September 1984, when he had come across a couple of youths arguing about the pistol, which, one of them said, had been picked up in a scrap-yard. He denied that exh 1 was the pistol that he had handed over to Wessels. He was unable to offer any explanation as to how accused No. 1 could have known that he was in possession of the pistol. The trial Court accepted the evidence of Wessels and found that accused No. 3 was an untruthful witness. On a perusal of the record I can find no warrant for disagreeing with the trial Court's assessment of the witnesses. Having regard to the nature of the lies told by accused No. 3 in his evidence, and particularly to the explanation that he gave to Wessels as to when and where he had obtained the pistol, coupled with his professed inability to explain how accused No. 1 would have known that he had the pistol, I am of the view that the trial Court was fully justified in drawing the inference, as being the only reasonable inference, that accused No. 3 was the person who had dispossessed the deceased of his pistol.) Accused No. 4 She was one of the crowd that converged on the deceased's house before the first arrival of the police. She was given a placard to carry aloft, on which was written ``Arena Shelete'' (``Ons het nie geld nie''). When the police dispersed the crowd, she was struck on the head by a rubber bullet fired by the police. After the crowd had re-assembled, she was again part of it. She was standing in front of the deceased's house when he fired a shot, hitting someone in the crowd. It was accused No. 4 who then shouted repeatedly: ``Hy skiet op ons, laat ons hom doodmaak (He is shooting at us, let's kill him)''. Subsequently, when the deceased was set alight in the street and a woman remonstrated with the crowd not to burn him, it was accused No. 4 who slapped this woman in the face. (The argument on behalf of accused No. 4, referred to in the last paragraph of the trial Judge's judgment on the application for leave to appeal, as mentioned earlier, and repeated in this Court, that there was no proof that anyone in the crowd had heard what the accused was shouting, is without substance. Mabuti, who heard the accused's shouts, was standing at the time on the far side of Nhlapo Street, opposite Maile's house. If he could hear what accused No. 4 was shouting, there can be no doubt that other members of the mob, who were much closer to her, must also have heard the words shouted. Whether anyone reacted upon her instigation is a question relating to the general issue of causation, which will be dealt with later.) Accused Nos 5 and 6 They were part of the vanguard of the crowd which ran towards the deceased's house and hurled stones at it, after the crowd had been dispersed and had re-assembled. They were not seen to have thrown stones themselves, but they were the leaders of the vanguard in the sense that they were running right in front, with the others, who were throwing the stones, following. Accused No. 6 was the person who was struck by the bullet fired by the deceased. He was hit in the leg. Accused No. 7 He was part of the stone throwing crowd. He was amongst the people who made petrol bombs in the yard of the corner house. He was the man who poured petrol onto the kitchen door of the deceased's house and set it alight. He was one of those who pushed the deceased's motor car from the garage into the street. Accused No. 8 When the crowd had re-assembled, he came across Manete and said to him: ``Hoekom is jy nie saam met die mense nie? Hoekom baklei jy nie? Hoekom neem jy nie deel daaraan nie? Want ons baklei vir die `community'? (Why are you not with the people? Why are you not fighting? Why are you not participating? We are fighting for the community)''. He was one of those who made petrol bombs in the yard of the corner house. He handed out petrol bombs to the mob and commanded them to surround the deceased's house and set it on fire. He showed people how and where to throw petrol bombs into the deceased's house. The people obeyed his instructions. He assisted in pushing the deceased's car into the street. Before the deceased was assaulted in Maile's yard, he (accused No. 8) was in Maile's yard, carrying stones in his hand. After the deceased had been set on fire in the street, accused No. 8 said: ``Kom julle, nou gaan ons na die Munisipaliteit se jaart''. I proceed to consider the basis upon which the trial Court convicted accused Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of murder. The trial Court found that the mob intended to kill the deceased, and that the intention to kill had manifested itself at the time when his house was set alight. The following passage in the judgment of the trial Judge reflects the approach of the trial Court, which, in my view was fully justified on the evidence: ``Daar kan geen twyfel bestaan dat die skare die opset gehad het om oorledene te dood op die stadium toe sy huis aan die brand gesteek is nie want elkeen daar het toe besef dat of oorledene verbrand of hy vlug uit die huis en as hy vlug moet hy aangeval word. Toe hy wel gevlug het is hy onmiddellik ontwapen en daarha met klippe bestook tot hy daar roerloos gele het en om te verseker dat hy wel dood was is sy liggaam na buite gesleep en aan die brand gesteek''. (There is no doubt that the crowd had the intent to kill the deceased at this stage when his house was torched because all those present knew that the deceased would burn or flee the house and be attacked. When he did flee he was immediately disarmed and stoned when he lay motionless to make sure that he was dead he was dragged outside and set alight.) The same approach appears from the following passage in which the trial Judge explained why accused Nos 5 and 6 were found not guilty of murder: ``Die Hof kan nie bo redelike twyfel bevind dat (toe) hierdie skare . . . alreeds die opset gehad het om oorledene te gaan dood toe hulle die eerste keer op pad na sy huis toe was nie. So 'n bevinding is ook nie bo redelike twyfel ons insiens bewys tydens hergroepering tot en met die gooi van klippe na die oorledene se huis. Op die stadium egter toe oorledene se huis aan die brand gesteek word is dit duidelik dat die opset was om oorledene ook te verbrand. Dit het almal besef, dat tensy oorledene vlug hy sou verbrand, en as hy vlug sou hulle hom onmiddellik in die hande kon kry en aanrand, soos dit ook geskied het, totdat hy oenskynlik dood was en daarna verbrand is.'' (The court cannot find above reasonable doubt that this mob already had the intent to kill the deceased when they first went to his house. Such a finding is also not proved above reasonable doubt when they were regrouping up to the point when stones were thrown at the house of the deceased. At the stage however when the house of the deceased had been torched, it is clear that the intent is to kill the deceased by burning. Everybody realised this, that if he did not flee he would burn, and if he fled they would immediately get hold of him and assault him as in fact happened until he was dead and burning.) There was no evidence that accused Nos 5 and 6 had taken any part in the activities of the mob after the deceased's house had been set on fire. Consequently the trial Court found that it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos 5 and 6 had the intention to kill the deceased. In the case of all the other accused, however, ie Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, the trial Court found that each of them had the intention to kill the deceased. It found further that all these accused had actively associated themselves with the conduct of the mob, which was directed at the killing of the deceased. On the evidence, neither of these findings can be faulted. In the case of each of these accused, the conduct described above plainly proclaimed an active association with the purpose which the mob sought to and did achieve, viz the killing of the deceased. And from the conduct of each of these accused, assessed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, the inference is inescapable that the mens rea requisite for murder was present.'' (Appeluitspraak pp 68-80) (Appeal Court finding). Summary by Court of events leading to death of Dlamini ``The town council of Lekoa, of which the deceased was a member and the deputy mayor, is a regional Black local authority established under section 2 of the Black Local Authorities Act 102 of 1982. Its area of jurisdiction includes Sharpeville. During June 1984 the council adopted a capital expenditure programme with a view to improving and expanding the amenities of the inhabitants in its area. To finance the programme it was decided to increase the service levies payable by the inhabitants by R5,50 or R5,90 per house per month. The increase were planned to come into effect on 1 September 1984. The deceased was known to have favoured the plan and to have pressed for its implementation. Many of the people of Lekoa were strongly opposed to the increases. Protest meetings were held and it was decided that on 3 September 1984 (which was a Monday) the people of Lekoa would stay away from work and march to the offices of the council to protest against the increases. On that day rioting and violence on a massive scale erupted throughout the area of Lekoa. The cause, or at least a major cause, of the riots was the increase of the service levies. Hordes of people went on the rampage through the streets of the townships comprising Lekoa. The houses of town councillors and many other buildings were stoned and burnt down. The deceased and two other councillors were murdered on that day, and also a councillor of the neighbouring area of Evaton. A senior police officer with many years' experience of riot control described the events as the most violent, the most widespread, and also the best organized riots that he had ever experienced. The deceased lived in Nhlapo Street, Sharpeville. His house was one house removed from the intersection of Nhlapo Street with Zwane Street. I shall refer to the house between the deceased's and Zwane Street as the corner house. On the other side of the deceased's house, in Nhlapo Street, was the house of one Maile. In Zwane Street, near to the intersection with Nhlapo Street, was the house of one Radebe. The yard of that house was used as a place for doing repair work on motor cars. On the day in question a number of motor vehicles were parked there. At about 7 o'clock in the morning a large crowd gathered in Zwane Street. They were singing and rowdy. They moved to the intersection with Nhlapo Street, then into Nhlapo Street and towards the house of the deceased. They pelted the deceased's house with stones. At that stage members of the police arrived on the scene in large vehicles. They dispersed the crowd by using teargas and firing bullets. After the crowd had scattered, the police spoke to the deceased in front of his house and tried to persuade him to leave. He refused to do so. He was armed with a pistol. The police left the scene. After the departure of the police, the crowd regrouped themselves. About 100 people, men and women, gathered together in Zwane Street. They were singing ``freedom songs''. Some of them went into the yard of Radebe's house and siphoned off petrol from the vehicles parked there into containers which they took along with them. The mob moved along Zwane Street and turned into Nhlapo Street. The vanguard ran towards the deceased's house and hurled stones at it, breaking the windows. The deceased was in the house, together with Mrs Dlamini. Members of the crowd shouted repeatedly (I quote from the evidence on the record, as it was interpreted in Afrikaans): `laat ons breek, laat ons breek, die huis breek en aan die brand steek' The deceased and Mrs Dlamini opened the door of the house and went outside to confront the mob. Some of them shouted: ``Ons is op soek na jou, Dlamini, die `sell-out', wat met Blankes baie te doen het, of met hulle eet''. The deceased and Mrs Dlamini went back into the house and closed the door. The deceased fired a shot into the crowd, hitting one of them (accused 6). This angered the mob, which became extremely aggressive. A woman in the crowd, who was standing in front of the house, shouted repeatedly: `Hy skiet op ons, laat ons hom doodmaak'. (Theresa Ramashamola, accused 4) In the meantime some members of the crowd were busy making petrol bombs in the yard of the corner house (accused 8). They poured petrol from the containers they had brought along into bottles, some of which also contained sand. The bottles, or bombs, were passed on to other members of the mob, who were told to throw them into the deceased's house. This was done, and the house caught fire. Mrs Dlamini fled and succeeded in reaching safety in the neighbouring house of Maile. The deceased's house was then surrounded by the rioters. Petrol was poured over the kitchen door and it was set alight. The deceased tried to extinguish the flames. The deceased's car was pushed out of its garage and into Nhlapo Street (by accused 7), where it was turned on its side and set on fire. Petrol bombs were thrown into the house from all sides. The deceased emerged from the house, holding his pistol. The crowd in his immediate vicinity retreated. The deceased ran in the direction of Maile's house. Just as he reached the fence between the two yards, which consisted of a couple of slack strands of wire, he was set upon by a small group of two or three or more members of the mob. A scuffle ensued, during which the deceased was dispossessed of his weapon (by accused 3). As he was crossing the fence, he was felled by a stone which was thrown by a man (accused 1) standing a couple of paces away and which struck him on the head. As he was lying on the ground stones thrown by the mob rained down on him. Some members of the mob went up to him and struck his head with stones. When he was lying quite motionless, he was dragged into the street. Attempts were made to place him on his burning motor car, but each time he slid off it. Petrol was poured over him and he was set alight. A woman shouted that the people should not burn him. Another woman (Theresa Ramashamola, accused 4) slapped her in the face. As the deceased was left to burn, the crowd, which still numbered 100 or more, sang loudly and gave the Black Power salute. They then started to move off in the direction of the Administration Board's buildings. When the police arrived on the scene again at about 9 o'clock, they found the deceased's house and motor car and his body still smouldering. The deceased was dead. A medical post mortem examination revealed that the deceased was still alive when he was set alight, but that he had sustained two sets of injuries, each of which was fatal by itself . . . (and he) would have died of these (head) injuries, even if he had not been set alight. The other set of injuries consisted of burns all over his body. He would have died as a result of these burns, even if he had not sustained the head injuries.'' (Appeluitspraak, pp 61-68) Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(4.52) —I rise to speak briefly on Senator Macklin's motion. The Government and the Opposition have joined the Australian Democrats in condemnation of the South African Government for its decision to go ahead with the hanging of six black South Africans for the murder of a black municipal councillor, despite the fact that the appeal court has accepted that there is no proof that the six contributed to the councillor's death. Taking up what Senator Sheil has just said, I would like to read a paragraph from today's Canberra Times: No evidence was presented that any of the six took direct part in the murder of Khuzwayo Dlamini, deputy mayor of the township. They were found guilty on the unprecedented grounds that they were part of an angry crowd, some of whose members stoned Mr Dlamini into unconsciousness, then set fire to his body. The Government and the Opposition have also joined the Australian Democrats in further condemning the South African Government for ignoring appeals for clemency from Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, and from countries such as Britain and the United States. It is indeed unfortunate that neither the Government nor the Opposition is willing to join the Australian Democrats in calling for the Australian Government to withdraw visas for the 50 to 100 South African gold experts as a practical demonstration of Australia's opposition to the apartheid system which allows this obscenity. This is indeed tragic when one considers that the black people of South Africa, and Namibia, which also has a regime which has legislated on the basis of a difference in colour and race-countries which must be an abhorrence to all true democracies-have exhorted our Government to take action which would isolate South Africa. Despite Senator Macklin's appeal, neither the Government nor the Opposition has so far sought to put some other form of action in its place. This is indeed tragic because, whereas the sincere and genuine concern of the Government and the Opposition is not in any doubt, that concern in my opinion and in the opinion of other Australian Democrats would carry more weight if it were backed by some action. Likewise, at this late stage I would like to appeal to the Government and the Opposition to propose some other action, which I am sure the Democrats would be happy to support, to demonstrate their concern in a positive and an active way. All honourable senators who have spoken in this debate have agreed that the execution of these six people is against the principles of our system of justice. These six people will hang simply because they were in an angry crowd and, in some cases, took some action in that angry crowd. I quote again from the Canberra Times of today: The six will hang because they allowed themselves to be caught up in a few moments of community madness during a rent protest 3 1/2 years ago. They were sentenced to death for murder, not because they killed anyone, but because they were members of an angry crowd of demonstrators that beat to death a black municipal councillor seen as a collaborator with the Government. Of course, that brings back memories of Sharpeville. It is 28 years ago almost to the day-it was on 21 March 1960-that 69 people were shot dead in one of the worst official massacres. A common form of graffiti-`Remember Sharpeville'-is now being replaced in 1988 by `Save the Sharpeville 6'. They are the six people due to be hanged on Friday. It is a horrible irony that it is once again Sharpeville that is serving to bring South Africa to international attention. Six people-probably innocent-are due to die on Friday. This also brings to mind, especially to those of us that are from Western Australia, the recent publicity in the newspapers about Mrs Sheila Suttner, who now lives in Perth. Her son has been in solitary confinement in Diepkloof gaol, which is near Johannesburg, for nearly two years without a trial. He has been an opponent of apartheid for some years and, indeed, has been in gaol previously. Why is he in gaol? He is in gaol because he is an academic lawyer and the Government knows that if it releases him he will continue to question the legality of what it is doing in instances such as that involving the Sharpeville six. It is a curiosity of the brutal South African regime that it is indeed sensitive to opinion. It goes to great trouble to dress up its repulsive racist laws in the garb of judicial respectability. The Government in South Africa does not lock up its opponents without trial. First, it makes a law which allows it to lock up its opponents without trial for as long as it chooses. Are those opponents innocent or guilty? If there is no trial, who can say? In the case of Raymond Suttner there is no evidence that he did any more than publicly call for justice for all people of all races. The fact that Amnesty International has adopted Raymond Suttner as an international prisoner of conscience is proof enough that he is and has always been an advocate of non-violent change. If a white lawyer can be held without trial for nearly two years, what can previously undistinguished black citizens caught up in civil unrest expect in the way of justice? The Sharpeville six have also become internationally famous. These six people have been condemned simply because they were part of an angry crowd. A man was murdered very horribly. No-one can condone that. But there is no evidence to show that any of the six people actually directly took part in the murder. Where is the fundamental principle that the accused is innocent until proved guilty? Nobody should need to have their innocence proved, because innocence is the basic assumption of civilised law. As I said previously, the South African Government is curiously sensitive to the niceties of legal opinion and the good opinion of the rest of the world. Therefore, we have to ask: How can we best help put pressure on the South African Government to dismantle apartheid? I think that Australia must make it clear by boycotts and sanctions. We must maintain the sporting sanctions as specified by the Gleneagles Agreement. We must censure our cricketers who prostitute their talents by claiming that they do it only for the money; and we should not forget that Pat Cash played in South Africa, naively claiming that he did not know what was wrong with it. We can also apply academic and business sanctions. For visas to be denied to these 50 or 100 South African gold geologists and technicians to attend a bicentennial gold conference would certainly demonstrate to the South African Government how much we abhor what it intends to do this coming Friday. The South African Government may be brutal and insensitive to the cries of its own people but it is intensely sensitive to international criticism and international pressure. If we do not want all of southern Africa to erupt, we must maintain the pressure as proposed in all three parts of Senator Macklin's motion. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(5.01) —What we are debating today is not law but, of course, violence. In the early 1970s when I was an anti-apartheid activist and an activist for the liberation of Zimbabwe, and working at the time with the Aboriginal community in Redfern-- Senator McGauran —Look what happened to Zimbabwe. Senator WOOD —Senator McGauran interjects, `Look what happened to Zimbabwe'. I am sure I would much rather be living in Zimbabwe than is South Africa. While I was involved in those activities I got to see mob violence up close. In fact, I was not part of it but a victim of it. At the time I was privileged to host in my home Edison Zvobgo, who was then an activist in the struggle to liberate Zimbabwe with the Zimbabwe African National Union and the Zimbabwe African People's Union. Edison subsequently became, I think, Attorney-General in Zimbabwe. We were all idealistic Christian pacifists. We were very concerned about the violent struggles for liberation. We discussed this issue with Edison, and Edison's response is one which I shall always remember. He said, `What we are fighting for in Zimbabwe is the right to be human beings. There comes a point in resisting oppression, there comes a point in being oppressed, where not to resist means to cease to be human. Just to remain human one has to stand up and say ``No'' and resist by whatever means one can'. That is what we are concerned with in South Africa. We are concerned with the response of Africans to violence and terrorism. It seems funny that there are two standards. We have heard much debate from Senator Hill and Senator Sheil about the words in the judgment that is sending these young people to the gallows, and about whether the evidence is this or that. We have not focused on why the demonstration was held in the first place. Why were these people protesting? These people were protesting against the inhuman housing conditions in which they had to live. That injustice seems to have passed us by. Had there been justice and equality in South Africa, such a protest would not have occurred and a death such as that of the Deputy Mayor would not have occurred. For the benefit of Senator Hill and Senator Sheil, I quote the words of their former leader, Mr Malcolm Fraser, who said: . . . apartheid cannot be opposed without violence. Apartheid needs not only the law but the police, the military and the bulldozers for its enforcement and maintenance. Referring to the film about Biko, Mr Fraser went on to say: . . . when people in this country condemn those like Biko as a terrorist or the ANC as terrorists because they seek to frustrate the government and to fight for its change, they should be clear in what they are saying. Are they saying that the blacks must remain enslaved? Such critics ritualistically condemn apartheid. We have heard that in this debate today. Mr Fraser went on to say: Nobody is bold enough not to. Such condemnations are empty and without force unless one accepts that the blacks have the right to use the only means available to them to escape the violence imposed on them by apartheid. It was in the process of attempting to escape the violence imposed by apartheid that the demonstration occurred. So, if there is any common cause for the death of the Deputy Mayor, it is apartheid, not the people who were protesting for justice and adequate housing. I remember common cause, violence and angry mobs in the days when Australia still supported South Africa and the Springboks were visiting this country. Some very violent and brutal mob actions were carried out by those who were then called rugger buggers but who I would more honestly call supporters of apartheid. It was mob violence and crowd violence. As a nurse I tried to fix up by means of first aid the beaten and bleeding bodies of those who had tried to protest peacefully against sporting ties with South Africa. I remind the Senate that it is now policy not to have sporting ties with South Africa. I remember well the angry mobs that seized upon and beat those of us who were demanding that Australia have no sporting ties with South Africa and those of us who were demanding some sort of just approach to the South African regime. I heard Senator Button talk about knee-jerk responses. I hope that we will continue to seek knee-jerk responses to injustice. I hope that all of us are so concerned about injustice and inhumanity that when we see it we will have a knee-jerk response to condemn it. I would hate to think that we would have to be somehow beaten into consciousness before we saw that it existed. Senator Chaney said that we should not impose sanctions on South Africa and that we should not impose the particular sanction counselled in this motion. But what about the Olympic sanctions against the incursion by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Afghanistan? I remember Senator Chaney's Party and his Government at the time being all for imposing sanctions, trying to convince us all that by not sending athletes to the Olympic Games we would not only end the invasion of Afghanistan but also see the defeat of communism in the Soviet Union. If the withdrawal of sports men and women from the Olympic Games was more than just a token gesture over the invasion of Afghanistan, the withdrawal of the visas for the goldminers and others who profit from apartheid would be more than just tokenism; it would be an action that would have effect. Senator Hill said that there have been improvements in South Africa, that we have blacks in theatres and all sorts of wonderful things. But that is almost like saying that, just because we now give jobs to women and we now allow women in the work force, we should condone domestic violence and allow women to be beaten by their husbands. Just because there have been some improvements it does not mean that we have to condone and accept the violence of the regime. Senator Sheil gave us his illustrious interpretation of the South African court's ruling and he concluded by reminding us that it is South Africa and, after all, it is a brutal country and we have to look at this in the context of it being Africa and, somehow or other, Africa therefore is brutal. I remind Senator Sheil that the perpetrators of the violence of apartheid in South Africa happen to be Europeans, not indigenous Africans. I would be remiss in my duty in standing here demanding that this Government take some concrete action to save these six human beings who are about to be hanged if I did not remind the Senate that at least in Africa these six were condemned to death by a court of law when we have an inquiry going on in this country where over 100 blacks have died in custody without the benefit of the judgment of a court of law. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not remind the Senate that this sort of denial of black sovereignty in South Africa is the same sort of denial of Aboriginal sovereignty in Australia. Indeed, when we talk about sovereignty we seem to think somehow or other that what we have in South Africa is a homogenous European minority ranged against a homogenous black majority when that is not the case. The laws in South Africa are oppressive for whites. It is treason for a white person to write a book in South Africa which criticises the South African Government. There is a denial of freedom of speech in South Africa. There is freedom of speech in South Africa for anyone who wants to support apartheid and support the regime. It is treason in South Africa for white or black to condemn the racist apartheid regime. I will not go on for much longer as Senator McMullan is anxiously waiting to address us for the first time and I would like to hear what he has to say. Senator Stone —We would like to hear him. Some of us came into the chamber to hear him. Senator WOOD —I will remain in this chamber also to hear him. I would just like to remind the Senate that what we should be concerned with here is not whether or not there is some legal argument about whether the Soweto six were legally or illegally condemned to death because the regime which condemned them is abhorrent; the judicial system which condemned them is abhorrent; and the system in South Africa provokes the sorts of violent responses that we saw in the demonstration. In fact, it is a system of oppression which we have seen time and time again where regimes provoke violence by their own extreme measures and they provoke violent responses to justify repressive laws and measures and states of emergency. As I have quoted the former Leader of the Liberal Party I will quote from the Australian Labor Party (ALP) platform which talks about this state of emergency. In 1986 the ALP platform condemned: the renewed declaration of the State of Emergency by the white minority regime in South Africa and calls on all nations to take concerted action to compel the South African Government to reverse this inhuman measure and completely dismantle the machinery of apartheid. That is what we are demanding-action to dismantle the machinery of apartheid. The PRESIDENT —The Leader of the Government in the Senate asked that I divide the question before the Chair which, under standing order 130, I propose to do. The amendment suggested by Senator Chaney to leave out paragraph (c) of the motion will be subsumed by the course that I am adopting. I therefore put the question that paragraph (a) be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that paragraph (b) be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that paragraph (c) be agreed to. The Senate divided. Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Hamer, D. J.Archer, B. R. Hill, R. M.Aulich, T. G. Jones, G. N.Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Beahan, M. E. McGauran, J. J.Bishop, B. K. MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. L. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. McMullan, R. F.Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J.Burns, B. R. Morris, J. J.Calvert, P. H. Newman, J. M.Chaney, F. M. Panizza, J. H.Chapman, H. G. P. Parer, W. R.Childs, B. K. Patterson, K. C. L.Coates, J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. Sheil, G.Cooney, B. C. Sibraa, K. W.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Crowley, R. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Teague, B. C.Foreman, D. J. Walters, M. S.Gietzelt, A. T. Watson, J. O. W.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. Upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate notes: (a) the failure of the Budget to: (i) reduce the level of Commonwealth spending on its own programs and therefore the Government's call on national resources, (ii) address underlying causes of our chronic uncompetitiveness, in particular the reasons for our extremely low productivity and excessive wages growth, and (iii) create an economic environment conducive to a substantial lift in business investment; (b) that because of these failings, the Government expects to see continuing growth in Australia's foreign debt; and (c) the criticism of the Minister for Finance in his speech to Labor Lawyers in Perth on 19 September about the Government's lack of courage in not further cutting spending, and his warning about the dangers of Australia heading further down the `Argentinian road', and calls on the Government to introduce a Mini Budget during the current Parliamentary sittings to address these deficiencies in the 1987-88 Budget.'' The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator McMullan, I remind honourable senators that this is Senator McMullan's maiden speech. Therefore, I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(5.25) —I wish to commence by thanking you, Mr President, the staff of the Senate and other senators for facilitating the arrangements which have allowed me to make my first speech at this time and on this motion. It is traditional, but in my case also particularly appropriate, that I should begin this first speech by paying a tribute to my immediate predecessor. I came to the Senate following the retirement of Senator Susan Ryan, who had represented the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) so ably since 1975. I am in no doubt that Susan will make an outstanding contribution to Australian literature and publishing in her new role. However, it will be a truly remarkable achievement if she can make in that career a contribution to equal that which she made as a senator. Very few people, when they end their career, can have it said of them that they changed the face of the institution in which they participated. However, Susan Ryan changed the face of politics and government in Australia. There is no doubt that in the more than 12 years during which she represented the ACT in the Senate, the situation for women in Australian politics was transformed-due in no small measure to her efforts. It is interesting to note the Press reports when Susan was first elected. It was seen as a very remarkable, indeed unique, event-in fact it was a unique event-that there should be a feminist in the Senate, let alone one who actually said that she was a feminist. Now we have many women representatives in the Senate-still a long way from 50 per cent, so we have a long way to go, but a large number of women who are making a contribution to their various sides of politics. It certainly would not be unique for any of them to regard themselves or declare themselves as feminists. We will never again face the situation that existed before the 1980 elections in which there were no women in the House of Representatives. On that occasion the ALP had three women elected, all of whom are still active members of that House. Indeed, one has become a Minister and another is the Speaker. They have been joined by many female colleagues, and we will never go back to the days of a total absence of female representation in either House. In honouring Susan's contribution as a senator for the ACT, as Minister for Education and in her other portfolio areas, as an outspoken representative of the ALP on a wide range of issues, and as an outstanding representative of women, it is important to note that, significant as her contribution has been, there is still a long way to go in the area of equality for women. That it should be remarkable that we have achieved a situation where 10 per cent of our members of parliament are women, when 50 per cent of the population are women, indicates how starkly inequitable the situation had been, how far we have come, but yet how far we have to go. I intend to make what contribution I can to continue the process of overcoming those inequities, both nationally and as a representative of the ACT, where significant and continuing problems for women remain. I recently highlighted one issue in my call for the establishment of a regional office of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Canberra. However, there are other local issues, concerning, for example, the need for a women's health centre, and national issues such as domestic violence which deserve prominence in the ACT, equal to that which they receive in the rest of Australia. That brings me to my role as a senator for the ACT. In the national Parliament the four parliamentary representatives of this Territory, irrespective of the party they represent, face a unique problem in balancing their local responsibilities with their national obligations. That is so because in the absence of self-government we constitute the sum total of the elected representatives of the people of the ACT. In any equivalent area, covering two federal electorates, with a population of more than a quarter of a million people, there would be, at Federal, State and local levels, between 50 and 100 elected representatives, both full time and part time, serving the interests of the population and representing their constituents. In the ACT that burden falls on four of us. Of course, I was conscious of that when I nominated for the Senate, so I do not say that by way of complaint, but simply to indicate the balance that representatives of the ACT will need to strike, at least until self-government is achieved. Within the ACT I have given the issue of self-government top priority. Fundamentally this is a question of democratic principle. Any group of a quarter of a million citizens deserves and must have the right to elect those who make the decisions which affect their lives. It must have the right to have those decision makers properly and democratically accountable to them. In the month in which I have been an elected representative of the ACT, I have also seen very starkly the difficulty and, in some cases, the virtual impossibility of satisfactorily resolving conflicts without an elected, accountable government. There are still many hurdles to overcome in the achievement of self-government-most obviously, an agreement on the electoral system, but also matters to do with the power and nature of the self-governing body to be established. However, I believe that the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) has set an appropriately fast pace. The agenda for change which he has set down, directed towards the achievement of an election in the ACT for a self-governing assembly by November of this year, is reasonable, achievable and appropriate, given any reasonable amount of cooperation from at least one of the other major parties represented here. The unique balance of local and national responsibilities thrust upon a senator for the ACT is not, however, in all or even most circumstances an incompatible charter, particularly for a senator with a philosophical commitment, which I have, to the important role of public expenditure in determining the planned change and development of the Australian economy and Australian society. Of course, it is the planned development of Australian public expenditure programs which has such a great influence on the economic and social development of this Territory. It has that effect on the whole of Australia, but the impact is highlighted more particularly here in the seat of government. It is particularly important that this question of the planned development of public expenditure be addressed now as we are coming to the completion of the construction phase of the new Parliament House. If I might divert for a moment, having recently had the opportunity to examine that building more closely, I can say that it is a great architectural concept, brilliantly executed. It stands as a tribute to those men and women who have worked so hard and so skilfully-in fact, I think it is fair to say so brilliantly-to implement the architect's concept. It is a building of which all Australians can be proud and I am sure will be proud. I am very happy to say that those with whom I have discussed it, who have seen or visited the building, already are proud of it as a great national monument. If I may make one specific reference with regard to the new Parliament House, I was pleased in my examination to notice that the facilities for telecasting the Parliament have been included. I think that is entirely appropriate. Like other members of parliament I am sure, I have received a number of letters in response to the decision of the management of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-although the people writing to me, I might say, do not blame the ABC-to transfer the broadcasting of Parliament to Radio National. I think it is appropriate at this stage that we consider the principles which underlie any decisions concerning the requirement for or the possibility of broadcasting or telecasting the Parliament. At this early stage-perhaps I will change my opinion with greater experience-the principle which guides me in my judgment about that matter is that Parliament should be regarded basically in the same way as any other very important public meeting; that is, it should be available to all media to report, broadcast or telecast in any way which does not interfere with the proper conduct of the Parliament. However, there should be no obligation on any of the media outlets to report, broadcast or telecast those proceedings. To revert to my initial point, as the Parliament House construction draws to a close, it is important that we face up to the employment and investment consequences for Australia as a whole and for the ACT in particular. I am not, however, as a consequence advocating that monuments and empty mausoleums should be built simply to maintain an artificial level of employment. However, there is a need here, as elsewhere in Australia, for working buildings-buildings that contribute to the efficient conduct of the administration of government and through which we can provide services to the people of Australia. What is needed is development, consistent with the Government's overall priorities, of a program of public investment and construction to maintain that wonderful body of skilled workers assembled at the new Parliament House and to apply those skills in the interests of the people of Australia. Obviously, there is a continuing demand here and elsewhere for office construction but, beyond that, I believe that there are major national institutions the development of which will assist this region and the country. In particular I wish to refer to the possible development of the National Museum of Australia. I am aware that the Government is reviewing the Commonwealth's role in relation to museums and collecting and exhibiting institutions, and I think that is an entirely appropriate decision. However, the reaction of the people of Australia visiting their national capital as tourists to the opening of the Yarramundi Visitors Centre in 1986 has indicated that a satisfactory level of demand exists to justify the construction of the National Museum. In the six weeks from Christmas to the end of January, 13,000 people went to the Visitors Centre alone and in the last 12 months more than 50,000 people visited that Centre-before the museum itself has been established. The revised development plan for design and construction which has been developed by the National Capital Development Commission with the Council of the National Museum of Australia is such as would lead to the development of an entirely suitable and cost-efficient concept which could make an outstanding contribution to our national culture and, I might say, to our local economy. But, of course, public expenditure, important as it is for the ACT, is a question of national economic priorities. In considering those priorities, I believe that it is important that attention is given to the proper development of the national infrastructure. In referring to this, I want to make reference in particular to the recent report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, which made the following important points. At page 47 of the report the Committee said: The problem facing Australia in the provision of infrastructure during the next two decades flows from the fact that our existing infrastructure network is incomplete and ageing. Increasing maintenance and replacement costs are likely along with a continuing requirement for new work. Added to this, there will almost certainly be significantly increased needs resulting from structural changes. The overall infrastructure investment need may be reduced at times by demographic and technological trends but it will remain substantial. The consequences of not adequately funding necessary infrastructure investment would, in the long-run, impose a serious constraint on Australia's economic development. The Committee went on at page 50, in effect to conclude: There may be argument as to what level of additional investment is required but the Committee believes that the first and most important requirement is acceptance that an increase is needed. This emphasis on public expenditure and investment highlights one of the predominant interests which will influence my focus of attention during my period as a senator. Amongst these priorities are economic management in general and jobs in particular. I recognise in addressing both those issues that the question of investment is a key factor, whether that investment be public or private. We must all acknowledge that the Australian economy is at the moment in a very difficult phase. The Hawke Labor Government has been confronted by major problems in economic management, both inherited problems and those imposed by international economic factors. The inherited problems were highlighted by unsustainable deficit and public expenditure commitments and by an unfair and inadequate tax system. To compound the difficulty of the Government's task in dealing with these problems in the context of a recession which it confronted on coming to office, there have been the international economic problems highlighted by the terms of trade decline but also including the continuing threat of international recession. In the face of those enormous problems, the Government already has a very successful record of economic achievement, highlighted, of course, in terms of the priorities which I have previously indicated, by the creation of a million extra jobs in five years. That is, total employment now stands at a level over one million higher than when the Hawke Government came to office. The other outstanding achievement of this period to which I wish to refer has been the sustained benefits from the consensus to incomes policy-the accord. When the Australian Labor Party proposed in 1983 that it could create half a million jobs within three years and establish a consensus based approach to industrial relations and incomes policy, the knockers and, I must say, in particular those who now reside on the Opposition benches, derided those proposals as unachievable and probably even undesirable. As one of those involved in the development of the accord, I have been proud to see the contribution it has made to the creation of the one million jobs and also to the reduction of the number of industrial disputes in Australia to the lowest level in 19 years. Despite these successes, we must all face the fact that the foreign debt and balance of payments problems facing the Australian economy require continuing adjustment. What I believe is important in that regard is that the program of steady adjustment developed by this Government is maintained. It is worth noting that this is the first real effective program of adjustment ever developed, in spite of 30 years of almost continuous government by our political opponents. The current program must be maintained so that the adjustment can be made without destroying the economy. Recent economic statistics indicate that that adjustment is well advanced. The trade deficit is falling, both in money terms and in particular as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). At the same time the Budget deficit has fallen, unemployment has fallen to its lowest level for five years and inflation and interest rates continue to fall. To achieve those five goals simultaneously in the economic climate with which it has been confronted is in itself an outstanding achievement. To this I would like to add the significant redistributive achievement of the major reforms of the tax system which made it fairer and prevented the tax avoidance which flourished under the previous Government. In particular, the introduction of capital gains and fringe benefits taxes has required many people to whom tax was previously optional to make their proper contribution to meet their social obligations. The Government has been able to use the revenue generated from those new and fair taxes to fund the family package which has transformed the lives of more than 100,000 of Australia's neediest families. Furthermore, these changes have been made in a manner which has created the potential for balanced, sustained, medium term growth. With regard to this, I would like to refer to the Economic Planning Advisory Council's (EPAC) paper No. 30 on Australia's medium term growth potential. At page 14, the report concludes: Real wage flexibility in Australia has been broadly comparable to that in other industrial countries. Disruptive wage increases contributed to some relative deterioration in unemployment performance in the early 80s. As I am not supposed to be controversial in my first speech, I will not refer to who was the government at that time. Further, the report states that the ability of the Australian wage system to support employment growth appears to have improved substantially under the consensus approach of recent years. In dealing with the assessment of medium term growth potential, the EPAC paper concluded that GDP growth averaging around 2.7 to 3 per cent per annum should be sufficient to hold the rate of unemployment at least stable, and hopefully for it to decline, over the next four to five years. The paper examines the feasibility of sustaining this rate of GDP growth in the medium term, given the requirement for continued adjustment to meet the decisive constraint of the balance of payments and in a manner consistent with the necessary objective of a moderation of domestic inflation. Its analysis suggests that, under a plausible set of assumptions, the required external adjustment is consistent with average GDP growth of 2.7 to 3 per cent per annum, a stable unemployment rate, moderate increases in real wages over the period as a whole and a stable real exchange rate. To have the record of achievements already established in such a difficult domestic and international economic environment and to have achieved that with effective programs of redistribution while creating the preconditions for medium term growth and continuing to adjust to enormous external pressures is an achievement of which the Australian Government and the Australian people can be proud. It is for this reason, with many others, that I take great pride in joining with other senators in this new role for me in Australian politics. It is a matter of pride simply to become a member of the Senate and to join with those senators who have already given such distinguished service. It gives me great pride to represent the Australian Capital Territory, where I have lived for a number of years and where I now happily hope and plan to reside for many years to come. In particular, it gives me pride to enter the Senate as a member of the Hawke Labor Government, which has under its belt already a record of achievements of which, as I have said, it can be proud. I look forward with enthusiasm to the opportunity of participating in the program of reform that lies ahead. Before concluding, Mr President, it would be very remiss of me if I did not take this opportunity to thank those, many of whom are here tonight, who assisted me in the campaign to win the selection of my Party to fill this position. I hope I can continue by my activities both in the electorate and in the Senate to justify their faith in me. Finally, Mr President, I reiterate my thanks to you, the staff and the Senate for facilitating the arrangements for this first speech. Having discharged this first obligation, I look forward to participating actively in the full range of Senate activities. Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is probably the last major report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. As has been announced, this Government intends to bring in legislation perhaps in the next sitting fortnight, that will abolish the Schools Commission. New arrangements have been announced for the establishment of a National Board of Employment, Education and Training. The Schools Commission has performed a very important role in the 15 years it has been operating. It has taken many initiatives, not least during the term of the Fraser Liberal Government, to improve our schools-programs that have led to additional resources going in the main to assist disadvantaged groups or to encourage excellence in schools. Many of these programs have been the subject of inquiries and have encouraged curricula development. The report that is before us is one important example of this. The report entitled Schooling in Rural Australia looks at the four million Australians who live in the rural areas of Australia, one-quarter of whom-that is, some one million-are school children. The report asks whether the outcomes in rural schools are as equitable as those in other parts of Australia. The Commission found that additional resources need to go to rural schools. These findings are set out in some 10 recommendations at the end of the report. On the face of it, all of the recommendations call for additional resources to go to rural schools in terms of more access to Austudy, the student allowance program; of curriculum development, especially for rural schools; of an extension of assistance to the isolated children's scheme; and of a quite innovative idea, a rural-urban student exchange scheme whereby rural students in the middle area of secondary schooling have the opportunity to go to an urban school on exchange with an urban scholar going to a rural school. The study recommends a number of programs. Of course, this report has just come before us and I have only had today to look at it. Together with other senators, I will need to evaluate the findings and the recommendations in the report. I want to return to the point I made at the outset, that this is probably the last major report of the Schools Commission. Throughout its period of operation, the Commission has been a source of independent advice to schools, to Ministers for Education and, indeed, to the whole nation. We have heard many times as senators of the importance of the Commission having the ability to hold nationwide independent inquiries. This has led to such good results in the various States. The situation at the moment is that we are not guaranteed, under the arrangements for the National Board for Employment, Education and Training, which will commence next month, that there will be any such platform from which independent inquiries with the ability to report to the nation and to this Parliament may be made. It is the view of the Liberal Party of Australia that the subsidiary council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training that is to look at secondary, primary and preschool education ought to be able to conduct inquiries of its own choosing and report independently to this Parliament, the nation and, of course, the Minister. The strong and, until now, enduring positive aspects of the Schools Commission, instanced by this report, are now in jeopardy. I take the occasion to remind the Senate that unless the Opposition's aims are achieved in these coming weeks, this may well be the last report of its kind from the Schools Commission. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.50) —I wish to speak on the report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on schooling in rural Australia. From a quick look at the report I realise that it is very comprehensive and covers many aspects of schooling in rural Australia. It helps us to appreciate the problems that are associated with such schooling, particularly in the far outback areas. In my time as a senator, and even prior to that, I have had the opportunity of taking many trips throughout far western Queensland to places such as Boulia, Bedourie and Birdsville, where there are vast areas with few people living there. I believe that people need to have big hearts to live in the outback parts of our land. I sometimes wonder whether we appreciate their efforts to provide export earnings. They live out there with their sheep and cattle and not very many people. Of course, those who live out there are concerned with the education of their children in the same way as those of us who live closer to civilisation. We appreciate the opportunities that we have of educating our children while they live at home. Very many problems confront people who live in the outback. I have been to Mount Isa and Charleville and have had the opportunity of speaking with teachers from the School of the Air who teach children over the radio. The children have only a certain amount of time each day for lessons but their teachers all do a tremendous amount of work in association with the correspondence schools. I am sure that parents who live in the outback are very happy indeed to have both the correspondence school and the School of the Air. A lot of these far outback homes are not only in western Queensland but also in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and various other areas where there are governesses and home tutors. I was interested to read in this report that parents, particularly the mothers, feel that they can go just so far. They may have the knowledge to assist children on distance education programs, but towards the end of primary school a conflict arises between parenting and teaching when parents seek to enrol their children in boarding school. Of course, after the children have gone through primary school the parents then have to think about secondary schooling. While parents in those far outback places and governesses can probably help children at primary level, it is not quite so easy with secondary schooling and distance education. Many parents deal with the problem by sending their children to boarding schools. Hostels are also provided by organisations such as the Country's Women's Association (CWA) throughout the State of Queensland. The CWA people there play a great role in providing the facilities so that children can stay at these hostels in the various country towns during the week and then go home at weekends. I am sure that many of the children love to do that. But beyond grade 10 one really has to send one's children to boarding school. Distance education is provided, particularly in Queensland, at the secondary level, and this enables young people to stay at home while they are being educated. When one thinks of the problems which beset rural Australia these days, one realises that it is not very easy for many people in the far outback to have enough money to send their children away to boarding schools. Therefore, I have been able to appreciate this report that has been presented. I look forward to hearing more about it in due course. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.55) —I rise to speak on the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission on schooling in rural Australia. It is a very comprehensive report and one which I confess I have had little chance to investigate in detail. But I will make some comment on particular aspects which are brought out in the recommendations of the report. In general terms, it is important for us to recognise that for our young people living in rural areas-I stress that these do not even have to be rural areas which are vastly remote because once one is any distance from a major provincial centre one strikes similar problems to those of people in far more isolated areas-there is a lack of range of educational opportunities. It is important for us to recognise what is happening as a result of both State and Federal governments not providing adequate resources for people who live in those areas. We are in fact experiencing a great waste of very important resources in this country. The talents of our people are not fully developed. Whenever one travels into the country and talks to people in the community, one comes across the sorts of problems which I struck recently in the Mallee in Victoria on a visit to Sea Lake where, because of the contracting size of the community and the loss of a senior teacher in the secondary school, a young lad who was interested in pursuing a science education was now not able to because the appropriate courses were no longer available to him in his local school. His parents had lost their income support as a result of recent Budget legislation which imposed an assets test. This meant that his mother could no longer receive an unemployment benefit and the family could not afford to drive him twice a week 80 kilometres to the nearest school for him to obtain tuition in physics and chemistry. We must realise that when we pass a range of legislation in the end we affect individuals at this level. That lad will be less employable when he leaves school. He will have to leave school earlier and when he does go to the city to seek a job, he will confront the sorts of problems faced by rural young people in finding accommodation and having inadequate income support. I remind the Senate that housing accommodation is one of the key issues we face at the moment in terms of social support. The lives of young students from the country are made much more difficult by the lack of adequate and appropriate housing. I go back to the point which I made about the contraction of services in country centres. I stress the importance of both State and Federal governments recognising the value of decentralisation of government services and, in particular, of the offices of government departments wherever it is possible. While at first glance it may seem more efficient to cluster government offices in major provincial or even capital cities of various States, it is not efficient when one considers that the closure of, for instance, the State Electricity Commission offices in Victorian country centres, can often mean that three or four people lose a job and then they move from that town. When they move, the school loses a teacher, the hospital loses some nurses and the whole community suffers as a result. So the Government has that means of supporting local communities. Recommendations in this report such as that the Commonwealth establish an accommodation support scheme and that Austudy provisions be extended to allow and give more support for graduating secondary students to spend another year at another secondary institution in a larger centre to round off their education, which has been limited because of the sorts of factors that I have mentioned, all cost money. The Government can save itself money by looking in a more far-sighted way at other actions that it takes as well as recognising the importance of resources in education for country students. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(6.01) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.02) —I note that a number of my colleagues are very anxious to speak on this report, which does not surprise me, and I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Bearing in mind that we have very limited time left for speaking on reports, and that we will get another opportunity to speak on this tomorrow, I will speak for no more than one or two minutes. I just want to say that the importance of this report cannot be overestimated for Australia's grain producers. They will not be surprised to find that the report suggests that from a national perspective resource cost savings of about $10 per tonne can potentially be achieved by the adoption of better and more efficient transport systems for grain. That is a major amount of money and, given the general trading conditions in the grain industries, it is a matter of central importance to them. Rather than prevent my colleagues from having a chance to speak, I simply make one other point, which is that I believe that the Government, and indeed the Opposition, should note carefully the very appropriate warning that we have from the Royal Commissioner, Mr McColl, at the beginning where he quotes Machiavelli and the danger and difficulties in trying to create a new system. He quoted Machiavelli as saying: For the Initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones. The reality is that to achieve the sorts of changes sought here will require a tackling of many vested interests. It will require great determination by the Government, and also by the industry because the industry has often been part of those interests which have led to inefficiencies in the handling of grain. Because others are so anxious to speak, I look forward to speaking again on this matter tomorrow. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(6.04) —As you probably know, Mr Deputy President, the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport was commissioned some two years ago and it has come up with certain outstanding findings. I might add that those findings were well expected by the people in the industry. As I know others are waiting to speak, I will give a brief rundown quickly of the proposed savings that could be made by the implementation of the report's recommendations. On just the handling and transport side, there would be a saving in Western Australia of $7 per tonne if system D were put into place. System D would involve deregulating transport and deregulating away from sole handling by the bulk handling authority. In New South Wales the saving would be $10 per tonne, in Queensland $15 per tonne, in South Australia $6.50, and in Victoria $11. On top of that, if industrial disputes were eliminated or brought into perspective, that would save $1.50 per tonne, and the premium included in shipping freight rates as a result of the industrial environment could be reduced by a further $2 per tonne. The recommendations are grouped under the headings `Marketing boards', `Storage and handling', `Land transport' and `Ports and shipping'. Under the heading `Marketing boards', the report states: The Commission recommends that Commonwealth and State marketing boards be required . . . to undertake the following tasks: minimise storage, handling and transport costs and reflect in returns to each grower the actual charges incurred by that grower for storage, handling and transport services; provide for competition in storage and handling services by not being restricted to only one licensed receiver in each State; disaggregate port services and sea transport charges and reflect these in returns to individual growers. Under the heading `Storage and handling' it states: The Commission recommends that greater competition be encouraged in the provision of grain storage and handling services by the removal of sole receival rights . . . . . . modify legislation to remove sole receival rights . . . remove port handling monopoly . . . remove legislative and other impediments to the commercial operation of the bulk handling agencies (all States) Most importantly, it recommends: make bulk handling agencies subject to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act . . . discontinue the current storage and handling charges imposed on `grower-to-buyer' and `permit' wheat transactions- That is, where wheat goes straight from the farmer to the end user but there is still a charge. Under the heading `Land transport' it states: The Commission recommends that greater competition be encouraged in the provision of land transport for grain by the removal of restrictions precluding the use of road transport . . . I will move on quickly to recommendations regarding the waterfront. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, problems on the waterfront cause great problems in the handling of grain in Australia. Under the heading `Ports and shipping' the report states: The Commission recommends that State governments continue the process of `commercialising' port authorities with the aim of permitting greater competition in the provision of port services . . . The Commission also recommends that: . . . its views on the unsatisfactory nature of the institutional environment on the waterfront be brought to the attention of the Inter-State Commission for consideration by that body in its inquiry on the Government's Waterfront Strategy; . . . the question of union coverage at the new Port Kembla grain terminal be settled as a matter of urgency. That is a good point for our New South Wales Minister, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), who is in the chamber. Under the heading `Implementation', the report states: The potential resource cost savings identified by the Commission are significant and capable of being achieved in the immediate future. A more competitive environment will result in further long-term efficiency gains. On this basis, the Commission proposes that its recommendations should be implemented as quickly as is practicable. I certainly commend this report to the Senate because it contains findings that we have been waiting for for two years. As I said earlier, we in the industry and on the western side of the continent certainly knew that these outmoded practices were in place and were ripping off the producers of Australia's grain to the extent of towards $15 a tonne. I am certainly glad that this has been brought to light and I look to the Government to have all the recommendations in this report implemented as soon as possible. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Watson, I draw your attention to the fact that the time for consideration of Government Papers ends in six minutes and that at least one other senator wishes to speak. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.09) —It is appropriate, when considering the report of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport, to look at the problems which hamper Australia's $3,000m grain export industry. Although our farm production is half that of the United States of America, our ability to move grain is shameful in comparison with that of the United States and Canada, our major competitors. For example, the average throughput of grain per employee at Sydney grain terminal is only 17,000 tonnes a year compared with 80,000 tonnes in the United States and 120,000 tonnes at Canada's major grain terminal. The Liberal Party rorts committee, which is chaired by my colleague Senator Parer who will be speaking later in this debate, has exposed some of the highly damaging work practices of the Australian waterfront. Many of those restrictions involve the handling of grain, notably wheat. Last year the Industrial Director of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Paul Houlihan, highlighted the problems in grain handling, storage and transport in the NFF's submission to the Royal Commission. The average personal income of a family grain farmer over the past two financial years-1985-86 and 1986-87-has been only $580 while the average wage paid at the Sydney grain terminal has been almost $31,000. That is a shameful contrast. The New South Wales Industrial Commission has overseen many of these work practices, to its great discredit. I am sure that a Liberal government in New South Wales would tighten up this lax adjudication and tacit support of negative productivity. I commend Mr McColl and his support staff for their work in a very difficult field. I hope that prudent implementation of the Royal Commission's recommendations ensues. I am pleased to see that this gentleman has been retained by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) as a consultant to oversee the implementation of its recommendations. I applaud that. The Commission has made a number of recommendations about grain handling, storage and transport. It is pleasing to see that the Commission has used efficiency and cost effectiveness as the bedrock upon which to set its final report. It is certainly a step in the right direction for the Commission to recommend that bulk handling agencies should be privatised in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. It is also pleasing to note that Mr McColl recommends the establishment of a grain hygiene authority which could be a cooperative body with the Commonwealth and all the States. Since the geographic isolation of Australia is no longer an adequate safeguard of the purity of our agricultural produce, such monitoring bodies can play a vital role. To enable my colleague to speak for a few minutes, I will reserve my right to speak later. Senator PARER(Queensland)(6.12) —I thank my colleague Senator Watson for his courtesy and kind words. Australia is an island continent and relies heavily on exports and, to a large degree, imports of manufactured and consumption goods. Exports are this country's life- blood. One of Australia's major exports is wheat. Even though earnings slumped somewhat in 1987-88, wheat is still ranked as the fifth largest export earner in Australia. The wheat industry has had enormous problems both in respect of oversupply on world markets and subsidies which are paid in countries which compete with us on those world markets. There are a number of ways to handle this. One is to be able to compete with those subsidies. However, with the desperate economic situation that the Hawke Government has got us into, that is not an option. Another is to increase our competitiveness, which means reducing the cost of the materials being supplied. Wheat, of course, is a major export earner. The area to which I shall direct my attention concerns restrictive work practices. The more we look at them throughout Australia, the more we realise how endemic they are. I have done a considerable study of the waterfront area. It is renowned for overmanning, featherbedding, restrictive work practices and rorts-call them what you may. One of the major reasons is that there are monopolies at the waterfront. All the operators need to do is to add up all the costs, whatever they are, and charge them to the ship or shipper. For Australia, which is in the export market, that is an absolute disaster because it introduces quite unnecessary add-on costs which make our goods less competitive on overseas markets. It has been calculated by the Centre for Transport Policy Analysis that restrictive work practices and industrial disputations regarding wheat handling at the waterfront alone add $1.50 a tonne to the export cost of grain. Direct disputes and practices account for about half of that $1.50, while the balance is the result of indirect costs flowing mainly from disruptions to vessel loading which slow down vessel turnabout and increase shipping costs. Those who read the monthly summaries from the maritime industry will realise that the vast majority of those costs accrue through holding up ships, particularly in New South Wales, and relate to political considerations, mainly in respect of South Africa, by trade unions which have taken on themselves the role of being the de facto government of Australia. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time allowed for the consideration of Government Papers has now expired. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria) —I present the second report of 1988 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator PATTERSON —On behalf of the Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2, dated 16 March 1988. Debate resumed. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.17) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I said that this Government, during its time in office, had brought forth both sound economic development and sound environmental conservation. It is important to remember that future generations of Australians will be blessed with both prosperity and a country with grandeur and beauty. As I said earlier, the Bill sets up further instruments whereby Australia's environment and heritage can be preserved. In case it is thought that there is no great need to have regard for the environment, it is useful to consider a few facts, some of which are as follows: approximately 2,200 species of Australian native plants-10 per cent of the total-are considered threatened. As many as 25 per cent of eucalypt species are at some risk of extinction. Australian fauna, although distinctive, is not particularly rich in numbers of species, but 89 terrestrial or freshwater vertebrates-about 5 per cent of the whole-are considered threatened. Seventeen species of mammals are presumed to be extinct. About two-thirds of original tree cover in Australia has been removed since European settlement. Fifty per cent of tall and medium height forest has been cleared or severely modified. An estimated 75 per cent of the original rainforest estate has been lost mainly due to clearing for agricultural and urban development. Much of the remaining rainforest has been logged so that large areas of virgin rainforests are now rare. Although large in total area, national parks and reserves account for only a small proportion of the land area in Australia. Even a considerably expanded network would not be sufficient to provide adequate habitat protection and wildlife conservation. The next figure is significant: 51 per cent of rural land in Australia needs treatment for land degradation. A substantial portion of rural land in Australia is continuing to lose its productive potential. It is in the light of that drastic situation that the Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) has moved rapidly, sensitively and with great effect to establish a culture of conservation in this country. That is what is needed. The salt that has degraded the land in my own State of Victoria has caused great havoc. There is an urgent need for people to have a sense of the necessity for preservation of our land. Unless that attitude or culture of conservation or love of the land is instituted, the soil in Australia can only suffer further and further degradation. This will affect not only the beauty of the place but, quite clearly, also the economic future of the country. Much work is being done in Victoria by government and by farmers, particularly in the north of Victoria. The waste of generations is now being turned back-and so it should. When we talk of conservation let us remember that it applies not only to the forests, the beautiful rainforests of Queensland in particular-that has been much talked about today and will much be talked about later on-but also to the fundamental state of the soil on which we depend so much. The portfolio of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, covers those areas and those aspects of life which are best calculated to develop in the community-hopefully, in the hearts and souls of each of us-the culture of conservation which, as I said, is necessary not only for the preservation of all those beautiful spots in Australia but also for the future economic development of the country and its present economic well-being. To turn to another topic: much has been made of the Commonwealth's part in preserving this land. Much has been made of the argument that the Commonwealth is usurping the rights of the States, that the Constitution has been overthrown and that in some way the Commonwealth is perverting the system set up by our founding fathers. This Government has done nothing but obey the dictates of the Constitution. I think it is very important to remember that throughout this debate. This Government has conformed to the intent of the Constitution. It has had laws passed and has carried out the administration of those laws in complete conformity with the Constitution. It is probably worthwhile reading some sections of the Constitution and of the Judiciary Act. Section 76 of the Constitution states: The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter- (i) Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation . . . Section 30 of the Judiciary Act reads: In addition to the matters in which original jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court by the Constitution, the High Court shall have original jurisdiction- (a) in all matters arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation . . . It goes on to say `in trials of indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth', which is not pertinent to the present argument. It is in that context that the Commonwealth has made laws. Those laws have been challenged by such States as Tasmania and Queensland. The High Court, as it is obliged to do under the Constitution and the Judiciary Act, has made the decisions it has. It is in light of those decisions that this Government has gone forward and done what it has done in the interests of the heritage, the beauty and the grandeur of this country. For people, not only here but outside, to say, `This Government is usurping the role of the States; this Government is overriding the intent of the Constitution' is just not right. Those people who are wrong are those who shout from the tree tops that this Government is in some way exceeding its proper role. The Government has the constitutional basis to do what it has done. It has the legislative basis for doing it. It also has the moral basis for doing it. It has the right because it is doing what this country needs; it is preserving it against the onslaught that unfortunately occurred at the hands of our forefathers, who came here, some quite recently of course, to earn their living by the sweat of their brow in working the land. As a proposition that is not to be condemned; indeed, it is to be praised. However, in working the land and in exploiting the resources that the land holds we must act sympathetically and with an understanding that this continent is fragile and perhaps not as able as other continents, where the soil is deeper and the rainfall greater, to withstand exploitation-I do not use that word in a derogatory sense. This is not a country that is able to withstand that sort of working to the extent that other countries are. This is a beautiful country. One realises this when one looks at the paintings of such artists as Fred Williams, who unfortunately died well before his time, Russell Drysdale and Hans Heysen. They should awaken in us the need to preserve the country as much as we possibly can. It is in that context that this Bill comes before the Senate. It has quite properly aroused debate about the balance between conservation and exploitation. It has to be said in favour of the conservationists that if they go too far they will simply preserve what, hopefully, will later be used. On the other hand, those who exploit the land too much waste it to the extent that it cannot be recovered. One can look again at a State such as Western Australia where there has been such exploitation that perhaps only two or three crops have been obtained from certain areas which now are virtually deserts. If one looks at such situations one sees the great necessity for a new sense of the value of the land, the forests and the rivers that adorn Australia. Considerable mention has been made of the forests in the north-east of Queensland. To some extent, in just talking of those areas, there is a danger the debate may become so focused on one aspect of the concept of the conservation that the general need for conservation will be overlooked. However, given that, it is interesting to look at what the north-east region of Queensland contains. It has great diversity-perhaps greater diversity than any other area in Australia. It contains 30 per cent of Australia's marsupial species, 60 per cent of the bat species, 30 per cent of the frog species, 23 per cent of the reptile species and 62 per cent of the butterfly species in Australia. Eighty per cent of Australia's bird species occur in the rainforests of the area. There are no fewer than 34 species of vertebrates that are unique to the area. So, at stake is not only the flora but also Australia's unique animal life if we do not conserve the land, the forests and the rivers in this great continent. I turn now to proposed new section 17a. Much has been made of the powers that are to be conferred by this Bill, particularly the powers of entry. Proposed new section 17a (4) makes clear that the powers granted to inspectors under this Act are not unusual. People may argue that the purposes for which the powers are used-that is, the preservation of the environment-are not sufficient for the granting of such powers. However, the actual powers are unexceptional, and I think that ought to be put on the record. Proposed new section 17a (4) reads: An inspector shall not enter an eligible place (other than a public place) . . . An eligible place is defined as any land, building or structure, whether or not identified property or on identified property, but does not include a dwelling house. So, a dwelling house is not subject to search and entry under this provision. Proposed new section 17a (4) goes on to state: unless: (a) the consent of the person in charge of the eligible place or the vehicle has been obtained; So, entry can be obtained, first, if there is consent. Paragraph (b) provides that an inspector shall not enter an eligible place unless `pursuant to a warrant issued under subsection (5)'. A warrant can be issued under subsection (5) only if an eligible judge is satisfied on information on oath by an inspector that it is reasonably necessary that the inspector should, for any eligible purpose, enter upon the place. So, if an inspector enters a place pursuant to a warrant, such warrant must be issued by a judge on information on oath or, under paragraph (c), the following conditions must be satisfied: (i) the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to enter in order to prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of any thing; and (ii) the entry is made in circumstances of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate entry without the consent of the person in charge or the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (5). So, they are the three conditions upon which a person may enter land not being a dwelling house. Such entry may be obtained, first, with the consent of the person in charge of the place or the vehicle; second, pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge; or, third, in cases where there is an immediate necessity to do something to ensure that the provisions of the Act are carried out. That is not an exceptional provision. During the debate some moment has been made of it being an exceptional provision. I think it is proper to put on the record at this stage that that provision is very much in the mainstream of the sorts of provisions that are put in any Act in which some sort of policing power is needed to ensure that the Act operates correctly. The provisions of this Bill are well and truly within the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. The Bill contains no exceptional provisions in terms of the powers given to policing authorities. It is dedicated to preserving our great heritage-that is, the continent of Australia-which hopefully for many centuries to come will provide its inhabitants with a great standard of living, together with the feeling that they live in a beautiful, grand and magnificent area of the world. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.35) —The Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill which we are discussing today seeks to amend the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, which was enacted by the Labor Government in the course of the Tasmanian dams dispute. That legislation, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Australia in the Tasmanian dams case, effectively prohibited any further work in the Tasmanian dams area. This amending legislation is part of the Labor Government's current plan to have the northern Queensland rainforests also placed under World Heritage listing. Many people from all areas of the political spectrum are not averse to seeing sensible conservation principles and protection enacted in this country. However, there are also many people who do not like to see the rights of individuals eroded and neglected just to satisfy the political expediency of the current Government and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). That is exactly what this legislation will do: It will further erode the civil liberties of individuals who are specifically affected by World Heritage listing proposals. This Government is attempting to preclude legitimate appeals against such proposals. Rather than provide for an open appeals procedure, this legislation that we are discussing will effectively preclude appeals being lodged in the Australian courts. That is hardly the activity of a government that is supposedly in favour of civil liberties and open government. The Labor Government's attitude to its environmental policy ignores its oft quoted doctrine of consensus. An article that appeared in the Australian newspaper on Monday, 14 March 1988 quotes the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories as saying: The Commonwealth's power to protect wilderness areas against the wishes of State Governments is now well established. That is certainly the case. The present Government has used its de facto environmental powers to ignore State government wishes and it has done very little to attempt to find a compromise agreement. It is that aspect that I regret about this situation. In the Minister's second reading speech he stated that the Government `has a record second to none in its commitment to the environment'. That is a surprising statement from a government that spends almost as much on landscaping the new Parliament House site as it does on soil conservation measures for the entire country. The Government stands condemned for that. What the Minister really means is that his Government is second to none in seizing the specific trendy issues, while ignoring other crucial environmental issues which affect the country's economic and environmental future. By contrast, the coalition's environmental policy has consistently been one of compromise and consensus. Before I speak specifically about the current legislation, I wish to raise some points about the coalition's record on environmental issues. While it is true that we have not sought to court trendy environmentalists with the same passion and vigour as have the Australian Democrats, and latterly the Labor Party, and while we do not make the well-publicised national park walkabouts and indulge in the tree hugging sessions in which so many Labor Party politicians seem to indulge, I believe that the actions of the National Party and the coalition at the Federal level speak for themselves. It was the National-Liberal Party Government that established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It was the same Government that placed stage 1 of the Kakadu National Park on the World Heritage List and brought about the cessation of whaling in Australian waters. It was the National-Liberal Party Government that took the initiative in developing and endorsing the national conservation strategy for Australia. It was the National-Liberal Party Government that introduced the national tree program. My Party, most probably more than any other political party, has a vested interest in conserving Australia's environment. Many of the members of our Party come from rural areas. They derive their income from the soil and from the products of the soil. It is in their best interests, if from no other motive than maintaining a sustainable livelihood, to conserve the soil, water and wildlife in Australia. I do not believe that, because farmers use the environment, that ought to put them at odds with conservationists. In fact, I regard them as being more aware of and concerned with the environment than the average Australian, particularly those who live in urban Australia, because the closest those people get to nature is when they mow their front lawns. While the coalition is concerned with and about the environment and all that it represents, we are not in the business of offering bribes to win over the so-called greenie vote. We are concerned that there should be a continued sustainable use of this country's resources while ensuring that the natural heritage of this nation is preserved. We cannot afford the luxury of being single issue parties. We are in politics to achieve something for all members of the community, not to play cat and mouse with legislation in the upper House, not to accommodate one group at the expense of another. Therefore, our environment policies must fit in with an overall pattern for government, one that is balanced, affordable and workable. That is not to imply that environmental issues are not important. A lack of commitment on my part, on my Party's part or the coalition's part to introduce or to support legislation that is not in the best interest of Australia as a whole should not be taken as disregard for our natural heritage. Many times during the animal welfare debate I pleaded for balance in the argument. That same confrontation, that same inability or preparedness to accept the other side of the argument that is common in animal welfare issues, appears also to accompany debates over the environment. Balance is a very necessary ingredient in a civilised society. Dialogue, discussion, compromise and a commitment to all those must exist, particularly in emotive issues such as the environment. Dialogue has been sadly missing on the Commonwealth's part in this debate. However, the reality is that we must all live in this world and, for that reason alone, compromise must be reached if we are to eat, have appropriate and desirable housing and clothing, and maintain a standard of living that we have all come to appreciate and enjoy. I believe that the coalition's approach to conservation matters is reflected in the national conservation strategy for Australia which describes conservation as: The management of a human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. Thus conservation is positive, embracing preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilisation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment. Turning from the environment policy in general to the issue of forestry, national parks and World Heritage listing, which is the central issue in this legislation, I would like to make the following comments. A balance must come into the woodchip and forest debate. On the one hand we have a group of people opposed to the felling of any trees in certain areas for any purpose at any time. These same people live in houses at least partly constructed from timber and largely furnished with timber and they write their protest letters on timber by-products. On the other hand we have a group of people that derives its income and its livelihood from the felling of these trees. These people live in similar houses and depend equally on the use of timber for their every day needs. Australia is a net importer of timber requirements and we must become more self-sufficient. That is being done through plantings of new species that will provide a range of timbers. Additionally, woodchipping makes a significant contribution to export income and provides employment and industry to a number of towns throughout Australia. Of course, it is very interesting that in the south-east of my State at the moment some 80,000 hectares have been taken by the Unsworth Labor Government. Jobs have been taken away and families and towns have been put under enormous strain as week after week they wonder where the food will come from for their families because this area has been taken away from the woodchip industry for a national park. This same fate hangs over other parts of the southern tablelands in the upper Murray. I know that people in Tumbarumba, Tumut and the Batlow region have every reason to be worried about what might happen to their region because of what the New South Wales Premier has done in the south-east. The assurances that the Premier has given over recent years as to what would happen to national parks have not been followed through. In Australia we have some 40,000 million hectares of native forest and three million hectares of national parks. Many of these areas are unique, have virtually always been virgin bush and should be protected against development either by the individual or by the Government. I do not think anyone denies that. Until recently other areas in New South Wales were grazing land and I can see no merit in converting them. But I believe that Australia is not that large and not that unexplored that new areas of virgin land with particular characteristics that warrant preservation are likely to be found. Therefore, I cannot accept an argument for increased national parks. This is another issue that is consequent upon the establishment of more World Heritage and wilderness areas. The Government must have the political will to provide an adequate infrastructure that will prevent the destruction of productive land from vermin and bushfires when it locks up this land for national parks. The New South Wales Farmers Association has often called for more consideration but has had little response from the New South Wales Government in that regard. Having canvassed those issues, I shall return to the legislation and point out where the coalition finds it completely unacceptable. First, the legislation states that the final say on proposals for areas nominated for World Heritage listing, or areas under Federal inquiry, or any area already under the World Heritage List, or an area deemed to have World Heritage values for which the Federal Government has already issued regulations, shall pass from the Australian courts to the international World Heritage Committee. That is totally unacceptable to me and to the people of Australia. This is taking World Heritage listing from a position of credibility to being totally alien to the average Australian. It is actually giving away our land. The impact of this is that there will be no rights for individuals or States to appeal to the Australian courts over any action taken. There is absolutely no reason why the Federal Government should remove any Australian's civil right to access to the courts. I have pondered on that and I hope that people will think about why this is happening. If the Federal Government is so sure that its legislation is fair and reasonable it should have the procedures open and affordable for those people affected. For the majority of Australians, including the environmentalist lobby, the issue of World Heritage listing is one with which they have very little direct contact. At most, World Heritage areas are places to be visited on holidays. However, many people, both in the industry and individuals themselves, will be directly affected by this legislation. For example, the mining industry would have no legal way of protecting its vast interests in Australia due to the retrospective removal of grounds for legal challenges to existing World Heritage nominations. I quote from a letter from the Australian Mining Industry Council to members and senators which indicates the concerns of this industry: Two aspects of the Bill are certain to erode investor confidence in Australia-the retrospectivity which will prevent the appeals to the High Court on current heritage proposals, and the uncertainty of compensation provisions for expenditure already incurred. The Bill is another example of an Australian Government moving the goalposts after the game has started and would, if passed, create great uncertainty about future investment. Australia, the beautiful country that we all like to say we are proud to live in, has a Bill come before it that will put a great deal of strain on an industry which, if it is allowed to prosper, will create a lot of export income and do something for everyone's standard of living in this country. The standover attitude of this Government also extends to individuals. There have been numerous occasions when individuals have been affected by World Heritage listing. The plight of the timber industry workers has been well advertised. I have already alluded to what is happening to other timber people in south-east New South Wales by a different government, the Unsworth Labor Government, which has shown total disregard for those people. However, World Heritage listing also affects individual property owners. I mention one example of a farmer who lost half of his farm as a result of World Heritage listing. One hundred square kilometres of private land may not sound much of the total of approximately 9,200 square kilometres of World Heritage listing in the north Queensland area. However, for the approximately 20 land-holders affected by this proposal it is probably the end of their livelihoods, with no guarantee that they will receive adequate compensation. The effect of this legislation will be that these people will have no satisfactory means of appeal within Australia. There is an old saying that justice not only must be done but also must be seen to be done. I am sure that Senator Cooney, who spoke before me tonight, would agree with that-being the eminent legal person that he is. The current Labor Government not only ignores justice but also will ensure that the citizens of Australia will have no opportunity of obtaining it. Honourable senators should think about that. To where will the people of Australia appeal if they cannot appeal to a court in this country? The Government is ignoring justice for individual Australians. Senator Richardson has gained his formidable reputation as the hatchet man of the Australian Labor Party. With this legislation he has used his old techniques on the population as a whole. Another issue I wish to mention is the use of inspectors who will have open powers of search and seizure. These inspectors will have an almost unfettered right to enter onto a person's land and do almost anything they want on that land. It is basically tantamount to setting up another police force in Australia. The only thing that the inspectors will not be allowed to do is to enter into a dwelling. However, I suspect that anyone living in north Queensland would be concerned to have someone stooging around his house at night. It would not be quite as bad as having an inspector entering the house, but it would still be a bit of a worry to have him flashing his lights around outside. Even though the inspector will not in the first instance have the legal right to enter a house, I think it would be small comfort to individuals to have their every action on their own property subjected to scrutiny, and to have inspectors wandering around the farm seeing what was going on. Some people have called these gestapo-type inspectors Richardson's Greenshirts. I think that earlier in this debate Senator Puplick described them so aptly. Senator Tambling —Balderstone's Brownshirts. Senator BROWNHILL —Balderstone's Brownshirts, as Senator Tambling says. I was told that they were referred to as Richardson's Greenshirts, but obviously they are associated with other shirts as well. It must be remembered that people who create monsters-I hope Senator Richardson is listening to this-are sometimes devoured by their own creations. I think that this monster that Senator Richardson has created in these greenshirts or brownshirts, these inspectors who will have such an unfettered right to enter properties, might come back and bite the hand that created them. Just recently Senator Richardson admitted the error of his ways in relation to the Australian Labor Party's environmental policy. He said something to the effect that it was suspect. Recently the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Senator Richardson had traded off Labor's traditional position in favour of the middle class greenies. I suppose that has been evidenced in the results of the recent Adelaide election, where the vote was not quite what the Labor Party hoped it would be. Because the New South Wales Unsworth Labor Government has not been looking after its traditional base, the same result will occur in New South Wales on Saturday when the people of that State will make the decision that they have had enough of a government that panders to minority groups. The other major aspect of the legislation is the extraordinary action on the part of the Government in accepting the jurisdiction of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. That means that the environmental impact assessment provisions may no longer apply to World Heritage areas. It seems absolutely extraordinary to me that the Government is not willing to have its World Heritage area in north Queensland stand up to the open scrutiny of environmental impact procedures. The only sensible conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the area does not have the intrinsic value that the Government claims it has. It is no wonder that we have this unseemly haste in pushing the whole proposal through in this Bill. This legislation is reminiscent of the travesty of justice that the New South Wales Labor Government perpetrated when it removed the Darling Harbour scheme from the normal State Government planning and environmental procedures. That was another example of the Government taking strongarm and out-of-hand action against the community and pushing legislation through without regard for the consequences in the final analysis. Obviously, when this Government has things to hide it makes sure that its proposals are not open to public scrutiny. I think the people might want to know why Senator Richardson does not want this open public scrutiny. Some parts of this legislation should be of concern to all Australians. The legislation ranges from a complete infringement of civil liberties, to giving the Government an unprecedented and open-ended power to control environmental policy in this country. The final indignity is that the Government's proposals obviously do not stand up to environmental scrutiny. Therefore the Government feels constrained to remove its north Queensland World Heritage proposal from the open and well-established procedures of an environmental impact study, as I said. I shall quote a section of the Bill that concerns me most. I refer to proposed section 17a (1), which states: The Minister may, in writing, appoint a person to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act. Sub-section (4) (c) states: . . . the following conditions are satisfied: (i) the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to enter in order to prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of any thing; I repeat that the sub-paragraph refers to `any thing'. Sub-paragraph (ii) states: the entry is made in circumstances of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate entry without the consent of the person in charge or the authority of a warrant issued under sub-section (5). Sub-section (5) (a) states: enter an eligible place and exercise powers under sub-section (2). The perceived necessity to enter a property is all in the minds of the inspectors as a result of their wanting to have a look at something. One realises how easily the inspectors could abuse that authority if they do not do the right thing. Yet, it appears that no part of the legislation ensures that they will do the right thing. This legislation is not needed in the Australia that we know. As Senator Puplick said at the beginning of this debate, it should be completely rejected. I ask the Australian people to look at the Bill and ask why any government should want to introduce a second police force into the Australian community. Senator JONES(Queensland)(7.00) —The debate on the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 centres largely on the updating of World Heritage legislation in light of judicial decisions subsequent to its enactment. But my remarks will centre basically on the role played by the National Party and the League of Rights in creating confusion not only in north Queensland but throughout the whole of Australia in a joint campaign that they have been promoting since this Government came to power. In recent days we have recorded an incredible performance by the President of the National Party in Queensland, Sir Robert Sparkes, and by the long time No. 2 figure in the League of Rights, a man called Jeremy Lee. A few days ago Mr Lee, who still praises the League of Rights but says that he has not the time to devote to it, embarked on one of his fear and smear campaigns against the World Heritage listing of our unique north Queensland rainforests. Sir Robert Sparkes, as he was about to do, and as reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of last Friday, 11 March, wrote a letter to all National Party parliamentarians in Queensland. One can only presume that copies of the letter went to Senator Boswell, Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen and all other Queensland National Party members. The apparent thrust of that letter, as reported by the Courier-Mail's widely respected political reporter, Peter Morley, was a warning by Sir Robert Sparkes that the League of Rights was trying to infiltrate the National Party. Some deal! Most of us who have been taking a serious view of Queensland politics since the moment Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen came to power in 1968 have been saying constantly that there was some collusion between the National Party and the League of Rights in Queensland. Senator Puplick —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. While I am sure that Senator Jones is fascinated by all of this, I wonder what the relevance to the legislation before the chamber is. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —What is the point of order? Senator Puplick —There is a standing order that requires the speaker to address a subject that is relevant to the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill as distinct from his own fantasies about being frightened to death by the Queensland National Party. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, but I ask Senator Jones to remain relevant to the Bill before the Senate. Senator JONES —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As a matter of fact, if Senator Puplick would only listen he would understand that the relationship to the Bill is that the League of Rights and the National Party have mounted a campaign against the World Heritage listing of rainforests in Queensland. It is because of that that I raise the question of the involvement of the two parties together. The Courier-Mail of Tuesday 15 March carried a different story, even as Jeremy Lee continued his tour in north Queensland, creating panic and proliferating his campaign of lies and deceit in relation to the rainforests in that area. I will return to Mr Lee later. First, let me return to Sir Robert Sparkes, that paragon of right wing virtue who is the puppeteer of the National Party in Queensland from his bunker at Bjelke-Petersen House, Spring Hill, Brisbane. The Courier-Mail carried an astonishing claim by a Mr Charles Pinwill, described in a front page article penned by John Orr as the State Director of the League of Rights. Mr Pinwill says that League of Rights supporters, at the request of Sir Robert Sparkes, supplied volunteers to man National Party polling booths during election campaigns. It is very clear from the Press report that there is collusion between the National Party and the League of Rights and that the campaign by those two bodies is being used to oppose the World Heritage listing of north Queensland rainforests and the conservation legislation introduced by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and the Territories (Senator Richardson). The article in the Courier-Mail states: Mr Pinwill said that through the intermediary of the now Senator Ron Boswell, the league manned up to 30 booths for the National Party. `I can recall serving personally at Alderley, Norman Park, and Sandgate in this way at different elections', he said. The ball, therefore, is clearly back in the court of that well-known doubles pair, Sir Robert Sparkes and Senator Ron Boswell. Honourable senators will be aware of the insidious power and influence of the League of Rights, that nasty little group of semi-fascists, particularly in rural communities in the State of Queensland, which I have the honour to represent in this place. Some honourable senators would have more information on the activities of this group of self-seeking individuals who have their roots in the philosophies of a late-lamented former house painter from Austria. (Quorum formed) In particular, my fellow Queenslander Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen would know a great deal about the League of Rights. Indeed, in 1980, when the Australian media were mistakenly treating her as a political cook from Kingaroy, Lady Flo, as she is known, addressed a seminar at the Wavell Heights Community Centre, organised jointly by the League of Rights and the Queensland House- wives Association, which at that time had some extreme right wing views. As I need to relate this matter to the legislation that is before the chamber-- Senator Puplick —That will be novel. Senator JONES —It will be novel. It is exactly what I will do. The League of Rights and the National Party are conducting a contrived campaign in Queensland. A question was put on notice by Senator Bjelke-Petersen on 10 December 1987, which reads: (1) Has any proposal been made to the Federal Government that areas in Australia listed with the World Heritage Commission be offered as collateral for the World Conservation Bank; if so, what is the Federal Government's position. (2) Are State Governments being notified and consulted about such a proposal. (3) Are the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society tax-funded bodies. The question is on the Notice Paper and has not been replied to yet. I refer to a publication called Enterprise, an organ of the Institute of Economic Democracy, which is printed and published by the Australian League of Rights of 145 Russell Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000. The back page of this document states: The information in this ENTERPRISE needs to be passed into as many hands, and as quickly, as possible. Then State and Federal Members of Parliament should be asked to provide answers to the following questions urgently: (1) Could they please provide details of all resolutions passed at the Fourth World Wilderness Conference, held in Estes Park, Colorado, during September, relating to the establishment of a World Conservation Bank? (2) What existing commercial or merchant banking organisations are involved in setting up the WCB? A complete lift of the next question has been put in the question placed on notice by Senator Bjelke-Petersen- (3) Has any proposal been made to the Commonwealth Government that areas in Australia listed with the World Heritage Commission be offered as collateral for such a bank? (4) If so, what is the Commonwealth Government's position? (5) Are State Government's being notified and consulted about such proposals? In 1980 the wife of the Queensland Premier addressed a seminar organised by the League of Rights. In December 1987 she placed on notice a question, the basis of which was lifted from a document called Enterprise, an organ of one of those cloak and dagger organisations of the League of Rights, the Institute of Economic Democracy, which is printed and published by the Australian League of Rights, whose address is 145 Russell Street, Melbourne. So I think it is quite obvious that evidence is available of co-operation between the National Party and the League of Rights. There is a campaign against the heritage legislation that is being acted on and put through this place by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Let me draw to the attention of the Senate some further actions of the League of Rights. The Courier-Mail's Peter Morley claimed in an article published last Friday, 11 March: The League, established in 1960 has cells on the Darling Downs and in the central highlands, and is a growing influence in Brisbane's christian fundamentalist groups. Mr Morley is spot-on. On Monday, on my instructions, a member of my staff responded to a League of Rights advertisement that appeared in the Cairns Post on 12 March. In line with the long-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order, Senator Jones! I have been listening carefully to your remarks. The Bill before us is the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. A point of order was raised by Senator Puplick pointing to the necessity to be relevant to the Bill. I acknowledge that the honourable senator has referred in the last five to 10 minutes to the Wilderness Society. But I again ask him to relate the thrust of his argument to the Bill that is before the chamber. Senator JONES —Mr Acting Deputy President, I thought that was what I was doing. I mentioned evidence which showed very clearly that there was a partnership between the League of Rights and the National Party and that the National Party and the League of Rights were calling for opposition to the heritage legislation and the amending Bill that the Government has put before the Senate. I gave further details of the role that the League of Rights was playing in its opposition to the legislation before the Senate and the action taken by the Federal Government. Further, I showed not only that there was co-operation between the National Party and the League of Rights but also that certainly there was collusion between some of the members of this place and the League of Rights in their opposition and the way in which they frame questions which reflect opposition to the stance that is being taken by the Government in relation to the matter before the Chair. If one reads the document that Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen took so much notice of when she placed her question on the notice paper, one can see a further example of what the League of Rights is trying to do. I think some of the questions that were put to the Senate last night by some speakers were also based on that document. The League of Rights is saying that there is a world conspiracy and that the Australian Government is going to use areas that are covered by heritage legislation as collateral to borrow money for David Rockefeller of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and Edmund de Rothschild of the European banking empire. They are the sorts of claims that are in the document that are being used by senators to attack the Federal Government's attempts to legislate to protect our environment and our heritage for generations to come. One of the real problems with the League of Rights is that it is pro-National Party, it is pro-nazi, it is an anti-Semitic organisation and it is being sponsored and supported by members of the National Party who are continually opposing the legislation for heritage listing of areas in Queensland. They are not only putting forward the opposition of the National Party, which the leader of the National Party in Queensland, Sir Robert Sparkes, would expect them to do, but they are also putting forward opposition which is being promoted and supported by the League of Rights. They are even using the words in the documents that are put forward by the League of Rights to promote and support their opposition to the legislation. In other words, not only is the National Party in Queensland being used by the League of Rights, but senators in this place are also using and promoting material that is being put forward by an organisation in the League of Rights. In other words, what is now happening is that the League of Rights, which I said before, and I stand by the statement that I made, is anti-Semitic-- Senator Puplick —I take a point of order. Mr Acting Deputy President Senator Jones previously said that the League of Rights is a pro-nazi and anti-Semitic organisation. That may or may not be the case. He now goes on to say that National Party senators in this place are guilty of supporting and disseminating material prepared by such an organisation. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that that is a very considerable reflection and that Senator Jones should be required not to make those sorts of reflections on members of the National Party who are senators in this place. He should not make the accusation that they are actively promoting a pro-nazi and anti-Semitic organisation. Senator Cook —Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Puplick pulled a point of order earlier about relevance. Under the summary of procedures in the official handbook, item 10 refers to a relevance and anticipation. I think you, too, have drawn Senator Jones's attention to this matter. Senator Jones, in his remarks since the points of order were taken has, I think, demonstrated relevance. I submit to you that he did so prior to those points of order being taken. I think, therefore, that his remarks are relevant to the Bill before the chamber. In regard to the new point of order, I do not think that Senator Jones has offended because what he is arguing is something that happens to all senators. All senators receive representations. It may well be that the construction that Senator Puplick puts on it is unique to him. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —On the point of order raised by Senator Puplick, in so far as Senator Jones may have implied that representations of a nazi nature were being made by National Party senators, I would ask him to withdraw. Senator Jones —On the point of order: I did not say that. I said that the League of Rights was anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi, and I stand by that statement. I also said very clearly prior to that remark that there were people in this place who were using and disseminating material that was being put forward by the League of Rights. In no way did I say that National Party senators held those views. I said that they were disseminating views of a group that had those views. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Given that assurance and given that I did not hear such a direct allegation made in the terms alleged by Senator Puplick, I ask Senator Jones to continue with his speech on the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. Senator JONES —I will finish on this note. I put it very clearly that when I made those statements about the League of Rights and I referred to the legislation before the House I had in mind that in a Press statement on 8 August 1980, the then Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Anthony, described the League of Rights as `racist, anti-Semitic and pro nazi'. Some of the people who are supporting my statements have some bona fides in relation to the Country Party as it then was and to the National Party of Australia as it now is. I support the measures before the House in the full knowledge that under an Australian Labor Party Government, our heritage will be protected from crooks and cranks. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(7.22) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. In Senator Jones's contribution on the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 he made accusations against the National Party of Australia. I wish to read a statement that I have prepared. On 15 March the Brisbane Courier-Mail carried an article suggesting that I acted as an intermediary between the President of the National Party, Sir Robert Sparkes, and the League of Rights to organise the manning of 30 polling booths in Queensland. This report is incorrect insofar as it states that Sir Robert Sparkes requested the League of Rights to assist in the manning of the polling booths. Sir Robert never asked me to contact the League and he was not informed of its involvement in manning the polling booths. The fact is that I did ask many organisations to help to man some of the polling booths. These included small business groups, church groups, ethnic groups and other groups opposed to communism and socialism. Included in those groups was the League of Rights. At the time I was not aware of the League's philosophy. Let me state how Sir Robert Sparkes's letter got into the paper. Sir Robert wrote to National Party Federal and State members and in that letter he expressed concern about the League of Rights. He asked people in the Party to advise the management of the National Party if they had observed any of the League's activities. Sir Robert put forward that proposition with concern because in no way had anyone in the Senate, including myself, disseminated any information from the League of Rights. I reject that suggestion. The National Party is not racist. At the last election we had three or four Greeks standing for us; in one of the northern-most seats an Islander stood for us. At no stage could anyone say that our Party has been racist. I reject that suggestion; it is completely untrue. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! Senator Boswell, your claim that you have been personally misrepresented does not give you the ability to talk about the National Party as a whole. You may only speak personally. Senator BOSWELL —I will not say that I did not approach the League of Rights. I approached it, amongst other groups. I was not aware of its philosophy at the time. I have never been a messenger for that League and I reject Senator Jones's statement quite categorically as being untruthful and full of misinformation. Senator JONES(Queensland)(7.25) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to make a brief personal explanation. Unless I misheard Senator Boswell, he said that I had lied. I certainly did not lie. All the points I made in my speech were facts. I did not accuse him of anything but I put the facts about the League of Rights. I think that Senator Boswell's admission just about covered everything that I had said anyway. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(7.26) —As you have called me, Mr President, I rise to draw attention to the time, but when I moved the adjournment motion last night Senator Puplick complained that the debate was being manipulated. Therefore, I am not inclined to move the adjournment of the House at this stage. (Quorum formed) In view of the hour and my more enlightened state than when I rose a moment ago, but still with some gritted teeth in view of Senator Puplick's exhibition last night, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Cook) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(7.28) —I want to emphasise that people who have Bankcard accounts should read the small print extremely carefully. If they do not, they could find themselves obliged to pay charges for which they never dreamed they would be liable. The instance that I draw on arose with a Bank of Queensland Bankcard, but I suspect that it is the same with all other banks which have a Bankcard service. Many people pay their Bankcard accounts on or before the due date. This probably does not suit the banks because they are not able to charge interest on outstanding balances at their exorbitant rate of 21 per cent per annum. Nevertheless, the banks are not entirely out of pocket. They charge service fees of up to 4 per cent of Bankcard sales to retailers who allow customers to pay by way of Bankcard. Suppose, for example, a person pays a dentist's bill of $100 by Bankcard. The bank concerned extracts about $2 and pays the remainder to the dentist. Let us come back to the person who likes to pay a Bankcard account before the due date. What happens if that person for some reason is a day late with the payment? This happened in the case which prompted my remarks tonight. The person was not wilfully one day late. Because of an upsetting family illness, she was not able to go to the bank on the last day on which payment was required. She was not particularly concerned as the daily rate of interest was shown on the front of her Bankcard account as 0.05753 per cent per day. At that rate the interest for one day would not amount to much. She paid on the next day and expected to see a small interest charge on her next statement. But that was not so. She was astounded to find a much larger service charge. Perplexed, she telephoned the credit card department of her bank. She was told that a condition of using the card was that if a payment was received late, a charge of 1.75 per cent of the total account was charged immediately, in addition, of course, to the obligatory charge of 0.05753 per cent per day. That is not a bad effort for one day; it is equivalent to about 660 per cent per annum. That is the type of charge that would have made Shylock blush. Sure enough, in the print on the back of the Bankcard account this condition was spelt out. Those who regularly pay by the due date could be excused for not knowing of its existence. I must admit that I did not know. I had expected that if I were ever late with my Bankcard payment, I would be looking at an interest charge of 0.05753 per cent per day. I, too, had not read the small print. So what is the moral to this incident? It is that if a person uses a Bankcard and is a `pay by the due date' customer, that person should not be late, irrespective of the circumstances. If people are late, they should expect to be hit for six. But there is an interesting postscript to this story. When the person to whom I referred was inquiring about her excessive service charge, she was told that payment on the due date was no longer satisfactory. She was told that it takes 24 hours for funds paid into a bank to get into the system. One has to pay at least a day before the due date or the payment will be considered late. What is the point of having a due date if that date is too late for payment? In these days of electronic transfer, why does it take 24 hours for an amount paid into a bank to be credited in that bank's Bankcard system? Perhaps someone is playing the short term money market. It is no wonder that I make frequent use of a different credit card. I find it much more user friendly. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(7.33) —I want to talk about the problem faced by a former Australian Capital Territory prisoner, Mr Ray O'Shannassy, before his case passes into the annals of an urban myth within bureaucratic ranks. His political campaign of one-person occupation of parliamentary and ministerial offices has upset some members and senators and their staff and, of course, the Public Service. He has asked me to make representations on his behalf to the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch), which I have done. At all times in his dealings with me, he has not caused me or my staff any harassment and he has not conducted himself markedly differently from any of the many and varied constituents that have passed through my office. I believe him to be a non-violent person in relation to other human beings. However, that is not the point of my contribution tonight. What I want to draw attention to is the source of Mr O'Shannassy's agitation. It comes about because of his concern that the Commonwealth, under its Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923, has not fulfilled its obligations in regard to returning former Australian Capital Territory prisoners. I am more specifically concerned with section 8 (3) which states: Where- (a) a person has been removed to a State or Territory in pursuance of this Act; (b) he is discharged in that State or Territory at the expiration of his sentence . . . . . . (d) his return to the Territory from which he was removed would not be unlawful, he is entitled, on making application in such manner and within such time as is prescribed, to be sent free of cost from the place at which he was discharged or released from custody to the Territory from which he was removed. The Commonwealth's usual method of discharging the obligation to an Australian Capital Territory prisoner has been to provide a free rail voucher from the New South Wales Corrective Services Commission. The cost of this has then been reimbursed by the Commonwealth under longstanding arrangements. However, this is not always a totally adequate arrangement, as has been demonstrated in Mr O'Shannassy's case. Mr O'Shannassy claims that he was released from Goulburn gaol on 24 January 1984 and given a rail voucher by prison authorities. He exchanged this for a train and seat ticket at the Goulburn railway station. When he boarded the train, he found that the seat allocated to him was occupied. His attempts to have the train conductor and station master secure him a seat were unsuccessful. Mr O'Shannassy's attempts to secure alternative transport to Canberra-by sitting in at the station master's office and later the rail superintendent's office-failed. I point out that that is the way that Mr O'Shannassy, in an Irish way, fights these issues. But he was not successful. Indeed, he was arrested on three occasions and on the last occasion he alleges that he was assaulted by a railway constable. Mr O'Shannassy has had a lifetime of political activism for social change. His sit-ins and protests have led him into an ongoing campaign of agitation against both State and Federal Government authorities in connection with this issue. Mr O'Shannassy also faces a series of ongoing court cases as a result of his campaign. This should not cloud the concern that Mr O'Shannassy has about the return of released prisoners to the Australian Capital Territory. That is the point I want to emphasise to the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook), who is in the chamber tonight. My reading of the Act suggests that it is the Commonwealth's responsibility to ensure the safe return of prisoners to the Australian Capital Territory upon release from the gaol gate. Some of the administrative arrangements following release could be improved and modernised. That is what I put to the Minister tonight. For example, after Mr O'Shannassy's train problems he was provided with a free bus ticket; but, again, there was not a seat for him. Subsequent inquiries revealed that the particular bus company did not have a seat allocation system, which highlights the vagaries of the transport system. I ask the Minister: Why cannot the Commonwealth negotiate an adequate and cooperative administrative system with State governments so that a ticket and a seat on rail or bus is assured? The voucher system not only does not provide a guaranteed seat on public transport, as I have indicated in Mr O'Shannassy's case; it also leaves a former-I stress former-prisoner who has served his or her time to carry a tag in the form of a Corrective Services voucher. It is exactly that tag that could influence the behaviour of other people towards treating a released prisoner in a contemptuous way. The current New South Wales State election campaign highlights how cynical and opportunistic coalition party politicians capitalise on hostile feelings within the community towards prisoners. I am very conscious of the old slogan that there are no votes in prison reform. We need only look at Mr Greiner's backdown on his plan to introduce a mandatory life sentence for murder less than 24 hours after it was announced. So I know that there is a problem in this area. Another consideration in this issue must be that released prisoners may not have much money, which was the case for Mr O'Shannassy as it is for many others. Mr O'Shannassy has suffered two heart attacks and a stroke and yet no consideration was given to his health problems when releasing him. This stresses the point that each prisoner needs individual attention when release arrangements are made. The New South Wales Corrective Services Commission has stated that a released prisoner can make private arrangements. But what if the prisoner has no family or friends available to assist? The Commission has advised that it is not usual procedure for it to provide transport for prisoners from the goal gate. It advises that a welfare officer or a representative of the Civil Rehabilitation Committee could arrange transport if the individual prisoner requested it. I put to the Minister: could not the goal clerk or other administrator make adequate arrangements? Surely there are not too many Australian Capital Territory prisoners being released each day from New South Wales gaols. Although I have referred to Goulburn they are being released from gaols throughout New South Wales. Whose responsibility is the safe return of released prisoners? On my reading of the Act, it is the Commonwealth's responsibility, as I have suggested. I ask the Minister to look into the matter and see whether a better arrangement can be made. Finally, I point out that Mr O'Shannassy has represented workers, as a trade unionist, people without housing in Canberra and now gaoled persons. I believe that the first step in trying to solve the problem might be to recognise that he has something in saying that prisoners should be returned adequately to Canberra from any gaol in any State. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(7.41) —in reply-I have taken on board Senator Childs's request for a better arrangement. Given his presentation, obviously the matter would be comical if it was not so serious. I will refer his questions to the relevant Minister, and obtain an answer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.41 p.m. The following papers were tabled. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 25. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 32. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order 1988-No. MS12-Carriage of meat by sea to Canada and the United States of America, dated 26 February 1988. Australian National University Act-Statute-No. 199-Statutes (Law Reform). Australian Trade Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 29. Currency Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 31. Defence Act-Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal- Determinations 1988- No. 1-Sea-going Allowance. No. 2-Hard Lying Allowance. No. 6-Flying Special Allowance. Fisheries Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 30. Health Insurance Act-Determination pursuant to subsection 3c (1), dated 17 February 1988. Law Reform Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 26. Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 28. National Health Act-Determinations (2) made by the Minister under subsection 4 (1), for the purposes of paragraph (dc), (dd), dated 15 February 1988 and 5 January 1988. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1988- No. 3-Parole (Amendment). No. 4-Adoption of Children (Amendment). No. 5-Agents (Amendment). No. 6-Taxation (Administration) (Amendment). No. 7-Air Pollution (Amendment). No. 8-Water Pollution (Amendment). No. 9-Motor Traffic (Amendment). No. 10-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 11-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 12-Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment). Regulation 1988-No. 2-Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) (Amendment). Services Trust Funds Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 27.