Tuesday, 17 May 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I present to the Senate the reasons for judgment of the Court of Disputed Returns in relation to the questions referred by the Senate to the Court on 16 February 1988 relating to the place in the Senate to which William Robert Wood was returned. The Senate will note that the Court has found that there is a vacancy in the representation of New South Wales in the Senate for the place to which William Robert Wood was returned, that that vacancy is not a casual vacancy within the meaning of section 15 of the Constitution, and that the vacancy may be filled by the further counting or recounting of ballot papers cast in the election of senators for New South Wales. The Court adjourned the matter to allow parties to make further submissions in relation to any further function the Court may have in the matter. Certain actions have been taken following the judgment. Questions and notices in the name of Senator Wood on the Notice Paper have been deleted, as have references to Senator Wood in the membership lists of committees. Salary payments to him have ceased. I would draw the attention of the Senate to pages 11 and 12 of the judgment, at which the Court quotes the judgment in the case of Vardon v. O'Loghlin: The return is regarded ex necessitate as valid for some purposes unless and until it is successfully impeached. Thus the proceedings of the Senate as a House of Parliament are not invalidated by the presence of a Senator without title. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement and paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death of former Senator James Bernard Keeffe. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 15 May 1988, of James Bernard Keeffe, senator for the State of Queensland from 1965 to 1983, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Jim Keeffe was born at Atherton in north Queensland on 20 August 1919. He left school at 13 to work as a farm hand. At the age of 20 he joined the Citizen Military Forces, transferring to the 2nd Australian Imperial Force in the dark days of 1942. He served in Australia, Papua-New Guinea and the Solomon Islands and because of the effect of war wounds was discharged on 27 October 1945 at the rank of sergeant. Jim Keeffe served the Australian Labor Party (ALP) for more than 50 years in administrative roles. He was an organiser from 1956 to 1960, Secretary of the Queensland branch of the Labor Party from 1960 to 1965 and President of the National Executive from 1962 to 1970. He was elected to the Senate for Queensland in 1964, his term beginning on 1 July 1965. He was subsequently re-elected in 1970, 1974, 1975 and 1980. He retired in 1983. During his 18 years as a senator he served on various parliamentary committees. He also served as Senate Opposition Deputy Leader, shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and shadow Minister for Northern Australia. One always has mixed feelings about one's colleagues in this place, but I always remember Jim Keeffe as a somewhat tireless debater on issues which were close to his heart. In those days I used to keep a sort of little black book of people who spoke at length on the adjournment and I must say that his name was always in it. He never gave up in pursuing points which he wanted to make in the Senate. Jim Keeffe was appointed a parliamentary representative on the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies from November 1967 to March 1976. He was a tireless campaigner for Aboriginal land rights and is widely remembered for fostering debate on this important issue throughout his public life. He was a founding member of the ALP Young Labor Association and was also prominent in promoting the full range of peace and environmental issues about which he was very concerned. He remained active in these matters until his death. I suppose that Jim Keeffe, as a Queensland senator, will best be remembered for his tireless work for Aboriginal causes and also his tireless work for the less fortunate people of Townsville generally. His office there was something of a mecca, in a sense a branch office of the Department of Social Security, for all those people who had problems of one kind or another. In his home city of Townsville and in north Queensland he will be remembered particularly for his compassion and concern for the less fortunate. Jim Keeffe was also a loyal and tireless worker for his Party and his country and was a respected member of the Senate. It was nice to see him here last week, with his two young daughters, for the opening of the new Parliament House. Obviously he was pleased to be seeing old colleagues and was enjoying the two or three days that he spent here. On behalf of the Government I extend to his family our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I join with and support the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in supporting this motion of condolence. I suppose many honourable senators would have seen Jim Keeffe here last week. I had a long conversation with him in King's Hall just a week ago. I am sure that that has added to the sense of shock and indeed sorrow with which this news has been received. Senator Keeffe will be best remembered, I believe, for the reasons that were emphasised by Senator Button, namely, his very long-standing commitment to the improvement of the lot of Aboriginal Australians. He was the shadow Minister in the Labor Opposition during 1977, shortly before I became Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Our common interest in that subject gave me a good deal of contact with him. As I recall it, I was somewhat relieved that, when I became Minister, he was no longer shadow Minister. I regarded him as a quite formidable debater in that area. In any event, his interest continued and I had a great deal to do with him, particularly over the period when I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and subsequently Minister for Social Security. It is worth recording that there were two sides to the late Jim Keeffe. Those who knew him only as a debater in the chamber would have had knowledge only of the rather abrasive side of his character. He was a very fierce participant in this chamber. He put his views with very great vigour and, sometimes, considerable heat. I found a very different character dealing with him outside the chamber. I found him very reasonable and helpful. He was always deeply concerned about his constituents. He brought many individual cases to me both with respect to Aboriginal Australians and, as the Leader of the Government has said, simply people in his electorate who were having difficulties of one sort or another. Some senators are said not to do very much electorate work, but I think that one could say that Jim Keeffe had a very large electorate practice which he pursued with great vigour. I was always very impressed by the sincerity of his concern for his constituents. I developed a very warm regard and affection for him because of that out of chamber contact which I am sure I would never have had had the contact been restricted to debate in this place. It was said by the Leader of the Government that he was a tireless campaigner for Aboriginal land rights. I suppose that this is an area in which I would have joined him in debate right to the end because the pursuit of national land rights which developed during that late 1970s period was something which I think has caused enormous difficulties between the parties in this place and, indeed, in the community. I think the fact that the Government has chosen not to deliver its policy in this area must have been a matter of some grief to ex-Senator Keeffe. In thinking about him since hearing of his death and reading something about him I have been struck by the extent to which he represented what might have been thought to be the traditional Labor man from a previous era. As the Leader of the Government said, he left school at 13 years of age. The record shows that he did a good deal of subsequent study by correspondence. He worked as a farm labourer and as a public servant. He took a rehabilitation course in cooping after the Second World War and promptly became the State Secretary and the court advocate of the coopers union. He had a varied Labor career-one which, I am sure, was of very great value to him when he came to this place. I think it should be acknowledged also that, as with so many of his generation, he saw war service. He was retired from the Services because of war wounds. I think that his service to Australia in that regard should also be acknowledged with some gratitude. I think it can be said that with the death of Jim Keeffe a very traditional Labor man has been lost. He was a man who, I think, certainly never lost touch with the grassroots of his Party. He was a man who worked assiduously among the people of Queensland whom he represented. Whilst he was, I think, to the left of the Australian Labor Party and, hence, often a very vigorous and noisy opponent of those of us on the other side of politics, he was a very worthy adversary. I am very sad at his death. On behalf of the Opposition I express my sympathy to his family who, I am sure, feel very great sorrow at having lost a very fine man. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I would like to associate the Australian Democrats with the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). Certainly Jim Keeffe was, as Senator Chaney has already said, a rather excitable debater and, as Senator Button has said, a user par excellence of the adjournment debate. However, outside of the chamber he was in fact a very kindly man. I can recall when I was a senator here alone for the first time in 1978 that he would often take time out to offer little bits of advice and encouragement to me if he passed me in the corridor. However, to take up Senator Button's comments about how he was a tireless campaigner for issues that were close to his heart, that was a clear indication of the sort of person Jim Keeffe was from his maiden speech onwards. Perhaps he was unaware of the fact that this place has a tradition whereby speakers in their maiden speeches keep things fairly non-controversial. Maybe he simply did not care or was just unimpressed by the fact that that tradition existed, because his maiden speech was certainly not one of the pious sort that from time to time we hear in this chamber. I think he set the scene in that maiden speech for the future outspokenness that was to be a characteristic and a significant element of his political career. I think the speech is worth re-reading not only for what it says about the person Jim Keeffe was or about the issues about which he was concerned but also because it is a clear indication of how little things have changed in the last 23 years. One of the issues that Jim was moved to take up in that maiden speech was the question of petrol prices and the disparity that existed between prices in the cities and prices in country areas. Of course, he was particularly angry about the way he saw this disadvantaging people in northern Queensland. Certainly from time to time we still hear in this place complaints about this discrepancy. As has already been indicated, Jim Keeffe was a ex-serviceman. He was deeply concerned about Australia's defence capability, and again in that same maiden speech he was highly critical of the then Liberal Government for trailing its feet and for failing to establish what he saw as an essential aircraft industry in Australia. He attacked the form of conscription that was in place during the 1960s when Australia was involved in Vietnam. He was passionate in his concern that a fair deal be given to ex-servicemen and to service people generally. I suspect he would have been equally concerned had he been in this place when the current Government introduced some of the legislation it has in recent years to cut back the benefits of which those ex-service people Jim Keeffe was so concerned about were so deserving. Like many of us here today he was worried that, as he put it, there was nothing to defend the front door of this country with. He mentioned that, too, in his maiden speech. Over and above all of this, he was a passionate advocate of a better deal for Queensland, in particular for its northern development. He raised questions of road, rail and airport facility developments in various speeches and turned his attention regularly to the state of various industries in Queensland, in particular the sugar, the beef and the ailing cotton industry. He was, as Senator Chaney has said, a man of the people, a true Queenslander and a Labor man of the old school. He issued a challenge in his maiden speech to the then government of the day to do something for the pensioners, for the underprivileged section of the community, and for the development of Australia. He could well have issued that same challenge to the current Government. As I said, perhaps it was a good thing that Jim, because of his age, was not here over the last few years to watch the current Government abandon its commitment to the very people he had such concern for. Jim Keeffe added a considerable amount in the years he was in this Parliament because of his concern about people he saw as disadvantaged, his concern for his State and his concern for a Labor Party that was based in the working classes. I think that the Queensland branch of the Labor Party is going to miss him sorely, and on behalf of the Australian Democrats I offer our condolences to his family and friends. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales) —I wish to support the condolence motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and supported by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. I support the motion not only on the basis of my personal relationship with Jim Keeffe but also as a result of our political relationship. He was a national Australian Labor Party officer for almost nine years, and as a fellow Party officer I am appreciative of the work he did in that area-work subsequently recognised by his elevation to the Senate. As I look around the Senate I appreciate that we are talking about a person who, perhaps, is not known very well here as a result of the big change that has taken place in the composition of the Senate. In those circumstances I would want to say that my remarks would be endorsed by important people who served with former Senator Keeffe in the Senate, such as Doug McClelland, Justin O'Byrne, George Georges, Bill Brown, Bert Poke and Cyril Primmer, as well as other members of the Senate from both the Opposition and Government sides who worked with him for the 18 years he was an active member of this place. I first met Jim Keeffe when he was Acting President of the Party-he was subsequently confirmed in the role of President-and we were having some difficulties. Of course, such problems are fairly synonymous with political parties today. In that capacity he was clearly able to distinguish between right and wrong in terms of the way in which the Party should operate and its members should work in pursuance of the objectives of the Party. I found Jim Keeffe to be a very sociable and likeable person. He was a person who did not mince words in taking up causes. He expressed himself in a very passionate way on a whole range of issues-issues which were not so popular in the 1960s and 1970s but which have become much more acceptable in terms of community standards in the 1980s. I refer, of course, to his very active participation in the peace and disarmament movement and in the civil rights movement. Reference has already been made to his involvement in the anti-Vietnam war movement and his taking up of environment protection issues. One has only to remember his many speeches about the Great Barrier Reef to appreciate the absolute devotion that he had to protecting our environment from those who would want to destroy it in the belief that all development is progressive and desirable. Reference has been made to Jim Keeffe's devotion to the cause of the Aborigines. I think one could say that he was probably the most passionate defender in this place of their rights. He took up Aboriginal issues following the acceptance by the Australian people of a referendum in the 1960s which acknowledged the need to recognise the debt we owed to Aborigines and to take such legislative steps as were necessary to redress the wrongs and deficiencies of past eras. I am attracted to what Senator Haines said about Jim Keeffe being part of the old school. Whilst he was part of the old school and part of the traditional base of my Party, I think his great strength lay in the fact that he was also very contemporary. He was able to appreciate and to be associated with the changes that were taking place in our society. I think that is a characteristic from which we could all learn. Jim Keeffe was regarded in this place as a person who was very dogged in his contributions to debates. He was fiercely independent and was often regarded by some as being very tiresome when he pursued issues in a debate, but that was the way in which Jim Keeffe took up and defended a cause according to his philosophical position. To that extent, I suppose one could say that he became somewhat controversial. I know that I can say without doubt that in that process he did not incur any enmity. In fact, he won the respect of whatever government was in office at the time and the then Opposition. From 1972 to 1975 Jim Keeffe was part of the first Labor Government in 20 years. Unfortunately, he was not able to be part of the first Hawke Government because he was an immediate casualty of the double dissolution that took place in 1983. He never failed to express himself against any form of racism. It took a great deal of courage and integrity to do that in Townsville, where perhaps examples of racism are found more often than one would wish to find in any part of Australia. At all times Jim Keeffe was an active supporter of the democratic socialist objectives of the Labor Party. He enjoyed membership of the Party for some 50 years. To the extent that he and I shared similar views on many issues a friendship developed beyond just the political norm. Reference should be made to the fact that he was called up in the militia at the outbreak of the war. He became a member of the Australian Imperial Force and served in the South Pacific zone with the infantry during the 1942-45 period. He became a member of the Returned Services League (RSL). There he applied himself to the same extent as he did in this place. Perhaps we accepted his strongly expressed views, but in some cases he was not very popular in the RSL, particularly in some of its sectors. He was discharged as a result of being wounded in World War II. Being the sort of person he was, he decided to take advantage of the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme. He enjoyed a short period in business activities and subsequently became a union official for two unions, the coopers union and the plumbers union. For nine years he served in that capacity on the industrial side of the Labor movement. He was then appointed as an organiser of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party and became the Secretary of that organisation, which he served for some 10 years. His public office activities were in both the industrial and political movements and then here in public office as a senator for 18 years. The Aboriginal people have lost a very dear friend and defender of their views. He was a fervent campaigner for their interests, not only in respect of land rights. I recall my visit as a Minister to Townsville when the Hawke Government decided to recognise the inequalities in the treatment of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. When I arrived there on a visit I was requested to see Jim Keeffe with a delegation of Torres Strait Islanders. The decision of the Government meant that there was now a recognition that during World War II they had been paid a very small allowance as a wage. The Government decided to rectify that matter and remove all the discriminatory actions that had been taken during World War II. Jim, on that occasion, as on many other occasions, took the necessary steps to acquaint the Torres Strait Islanders of what was available to them as a result of parliamentary decisions. I met a delegation which was able to present the views of those Torres Strait Islanders who might not otherwise have known of the decisions this Parliament had taken in that year's Budget. He loved his country and his Party and he certainly loved the Australian people. He was a very strong advocate for north Queensland. He taught me that the people of north Queensland regarded Canberra almost as another country. I also found in discussions with him that those people also regarded Brisbane in the same way. He was always able to show an essential objectivity in matters. So, despite the fact that he pursued a controversial career and took up causes which often were not understood at the time he became their advocate, he lived to see the time when not only did the Australian Labor Party accept the advanced views that he held, but even this Parliament established organisations on an all-party basis to deal with peace and disarmament. To that extent Jim was a pioneer. On behalf of many of his former comrades, as well as those here who served such a short period with him, I say how much we regret his passing and how much we want to pass on our condolences to the remaining members of his family. I renewed my acquaintance with him last Monday. As has been referred to by other speakers, he brought his daughter here so that she might understand the importance of the parliamentary process. The great thing about Jim was that not only did he support the parliamentary process but also he believed in the extra-parliamentary activity of which he was one of the best advocates. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I rise on behalf of the National Party of Australia to support the condolence motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to the relatives of former Senator Jim Keeffe. He died suddenly a couple of nights ago. It must have been an horrific experience for his son to go on to the train and to find him dead there, and I hope that that has left no permanent scar. Jim Keeffe certainly did believe in the more robust style of debate in this chamber. I remember that when I first came here he was like a fighting cock on issues about which he felt deeply. He never seemed particularly enamoured of the Queensland Government at the time and he used to hammer away at it. We came to nickname him the knocker from the north. Jim Keeffe and I wound up on the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, which was set up by Gough Whitlam to inquire into the matter of self-government for the Northern Territory. While serving on that Committee we visited a whole lot of magical places in Australia. I can recall Maningrida, Umbakumba, Bamyili and Roper River-and other places that I would not normally get to. Jim Keeffe was always received with happiness by the Aborigines. He seemed to know them all very well and they knew him. We used to have to sit down under the trees; I did not sit on the ground very well then-or now-but Jim used to fold up like a camel and sit down. The ants used to walk over him and the Aborigines and seemed to nest on me, and they all seemed to enjoy my discomfiture, although after a while the ants stopped biting, and I thought, `Oh well, it must be something to do with his policies; he has got me on side'. We got on very well. He showed an intense interest in the welfare of Aborigines and in the matter of Aboriginal land rights and conservation issues in the Territory. We got on so well that he even took me to a Labor Party branch meeting in the Northern Territory. I think it did us both good. Senator Haines —Did it do the branch any good? Senator SHEIL —I do not know whether it did the branch any good! Jim Keeffe was a very sincere man. He did suffer enormous disability from his war wounds. He had a disfigured arm which must have caused him no end of problems. I feel that we have lost a man who made a great contribution to this place. He served his Party very well over the years, up to and including being the Party's Federal President for some six years. I extend every condolence to his wife and family, whom I have met. His is a most varied family and one that a person could enjoy in lots of different ways. He was loved by them all and I am sure he will be missed very dearly by them. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —Jim Keeffe's political career has been outlined in detail here this afternoon and so it is not necessary for me to repeat those details. I do, however, wish to be associated with the condolence motion and to say something about a friendship that I developed with Jim over many years. I first met Jim in the early 1960s, although I knew of him well before then through my membership of the Australian Labor Party. When we first met, Jim was Secretary of the Labor Party in Queensland and was present at a branch meeting of the Party at Nambour. I was a visitor at the meeting, having driven down to Nambour from the nearby country area where I was teaching. Jim had taken an evening away from a holiday at the nearby north coast to attend. I cannot recall why he came to the meeting-nothing out of the ordinary occurred that night. Perhaps he had been invited to attend and, knowing Jim, he would have done his utmost to accept the invitation. It was an annual meeting, and office bearers had to be elected for the ensuing 12 months. I can remember that Jim was asked to call nominations for branch president, and he agreed to do so, but only after reminding the members who were present that it was probably against the Party rules for him to do so. Anyway, all the branch positions were filled and as far as I can remember there were no ballots. Certainly, there was never any challenge to the results because an outsider had called the nominations. From that time on, I met Jim on a number of occasions, but for some time I would have regarded him as an acquaintance rather than a friend. Our contact was not sufficiently regular for a friendship to develop. Yet from 1969 I got to know him quite well. In that year I nominated for Senate preselection and surprised many people, including myself, by being placed on the Party's ticket for the Senate election expected in 1970. I did not have an enviable position. I was No. 3 on the ballot paper and it must be remembered that in those days five senators were elected for each State at half-Senate elections. Jim Keeffe was the leader of the team and Ron McAuliffe was second. Jim was a senator already and Ron McAuliffe was destined to become one. During the period between preselection and the Senate poll, I was in regular contact with Jim Keeffe. He was of great assistance in sending me relevant materials and suggesting campaign itineraries. It would have been easy for Jim to take it easy, knowing he would be elected and that I was in an almost impossible position, but that was not his way. He helped immensely. It is history now that I was not successful in 1970, but I saw Jim regularly in the years to follow. I met him occasionally in Canberra when my public servant duties brought me here. He and I were members of the Party's Senate team following the double dissolution of 1974. Jim, as the No. 3 candidate, was successful in being re-elected, but I had the dubious distinction of being the only No. 5 Labor candidate throughout Australia who was not elected. Following the double dissolution of 1975, I was once again on the same Senate team as Jim. He was again leader of the team and assisted me as he had done previously. After my lack of success in 1970, 1974 and in the bizarre events surrounding the filling of the casual vacancy by the Queensland Parliament in 1975, I was beginning to wonder whether I would ever make it to this chamber. Yet, in the 1975 election I was successful and joined Jim in the chamber and in the Caucus. From then until his retirement in 1983, he and I were political colleagues and firm friends. I was sorry that he decided not to recontest his seat at the election which followed the 1983 double dissolution. It was a mark of the authority he had in the Party, however, that he was virtually able to name his successor. I am saddened that Jim Keeffe's retirement has been cut short. He was not really retired from politics, but had the time to do some of those things which would have been difficult to do while representing Queensland as a senator. In 1975, when writing about Jim, I remarked, amongst other things: . . . some of his best work has been done out of the Senate and has gone largely unnoticed. He is a tireless and successful worker for the underprivileged and many people will have reason to thank him long after he is no longer a member of the national Parliament. In the years which were to follow, I never had cause to doubt my judgment on that occasion. I am saddened by Jim Keeffe's passing and I extend to his family my sympathy in their time of sorrow. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —Some honourable senators have already referred to the persona that Jim Keeffe presented in the chamber. Others have referred to the man they knew in the party and in their community work. However, another side of Jim Keeffe should be mentioned today. When I came here in 1974-and only six senators are left here of those who came in 1974 or previously-Jim Keeffe was the Chairman of the committee on which I was appointed to serve. I refer to the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. We presented a fine report that has never been looked at again by anyone. Senator Haines —That is pretty standard. Senator PETER BAUME —Yes, as Senator Haines says, that is pretty standard. While I was on that committee, under the chairmanship of Jim Keeffe, I learned about the opportunities presented by committee work for the bipartisan approach possible on issues such as the one being studied at that time. I became aware, too, of the great courtesy that Jim Keeffe extended outside the chamber to colleagues who were serving on the Committee with him. He scrupulously gave opportunities to his colleagues, including very new colleagues in the Senate, to contribute to the work of the Committee. During the many public hearings held by the Committee, Jim Keeffe demonstrated those capacities. When the report was being written under his chairmanship, and later under the chairmanship of Neville Bonner, following the change of government, Jim Keeffe continued to be courteous and caring of his colleagues. He really was most remarkable when the Committee travelled. Senator Keeffe made sure that the Committee did travel, as Senator Sheil has already said. I can recall eating barbecued bush animals up on Cape York, thanks to an arrangement made by Senator Keeffe when we visited Laura to examine the Quinkin Caves with Mr Percy Tresize, and I remember the visits to Townsville and the way that he looked after us there. However, most notable was a visit arranged by Senator Keeffe to examine the Aboriginal environment in and around Oodnadatta in the northern part of South Australia. That was quite a committee, and its members included former Senators Melzer, Bonner and Davidson and, of course, Senator Keeffe. Lois O'Donoghue, the then Regional Director of Aboriginal Affairs and a fine Australian who later became Australian of the Year and Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, was our guide. The Committee was about as welcome in a large part of the community of Oodnadatta as a pork chop in a synagogue, as they say. Senator Haines —You are allowed to say that. Senator PETER BAUME —Yes, I am allowed to say that; that is all right. The Committee was very unwelcome and, in fact, there was nearly a brawl at the public meeting that was held at 6 p.m. In case it has not been recorded Jean Melzer, a former senator, was mentioned in dispatches for her fine work in quelling the hotheads among some of the local citizenry. Following that meeting, which had not been very productive, we repaired to the only pub in town-the Transcontinental Hotel of Oodnadatta. There was a mouse plague at the time so it was necessary to close all outside doors and, because the hotel was not very well equipped, it was two senators to a room. I shared a room with former Senator Davidson, Keeffe shared with the pilot of our plane and Lois O'Donoghue and Melzer shared another room. The publican of the hotel went on a rampage, and we took it that he was drunk. He threatened to kill someone in our party, and to this day we do not know why; we do not know what the crime was. In desperation his wife locked herself and a young child in a room. When the police arrived, the publican would not or could not open the door. Finally, the publican was roaring under arrest, the door was smashed in, the child and wife were rescued and taken off somewhere else and the publican was taken off to gaol. The interesting thing is that when we came out the next morning, breakfast was provided by the hotel staff as if nothing had happened-apparently that kind of event occurred quite regularly. Jim Keeffe took us through that and other circumstances with great aplomb. There was a great sense of depth to this man in what he did for me as a young senator in teaching me about committees and what they had to offer. It is not necessary in motions of condolence to support anyone's politics nor yet the way in which they proceed to express their political views in this chamber, and that is not the purpose of this motion. I am pleased that Jim Keeffe came to Canberra for the celebrations last week; for that we are grateful, and we are also grateful for the memories of what he did, and I personally am grateful for what he did for me. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 programs of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Cook (from 468 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 137 citizens) and McKiernan (from 163 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators in the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their opposition to the privatisation and de-regulation of the Australian telecommunications system and to the proposed implementation of timed local calls and directory assistance charging. Your petitioners pray that the Australian Government will take the necessary action to prevent any such privatisation, de-regulation, timed local calls, and directory assistance charging, and we, your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 77 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. We, the petitioners, request the Government to ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard of care now available in nursing homes in this State. by Senators Button (from 181 citizens) and McKiernan (from 44 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 Bolkus (from 12 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 the Constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. 2. Our deep concern that the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees which propose radical changes to the Constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. 3. Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke Government which gives more power to the Government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the States and weakens the role of the Senate. by Senator Durack (from 807 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 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (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 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. And, your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Stone (from 144 citizens). Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition from 78 petitioners which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in correct form, praying that the Senate request the Government to support the proposals by the Australian Pensioners Federation for pensioner tax rebates: We, the undersigned members of the Waterside Workers Retired Members Association present at the General Meeting held on 9th February, 1988 request your urgent attention to the decline in the value of pensions. A single pensioner in 1988 will be liable to pay income tax if his or her income exceeds $3.72 per week above the standard pension, yet the social security means test says they can earn up to $40 per week and married couples jointly up to $70 per week. As further rises take place pensioners will be paying tax on the pension alone, without the small income they are allowed to receive each week to supplement the meagre pension and help pay accounts during the year and for home maintenance etc. We support the Australian Pensioners Federation proposals for an increase in the pensioner tax rebate from $250 to $700 per year to help alleviate this position. However, we consider that a more equitable arrangement would be a tax exemption for all people with an income of not more than $10,000 per year. We respectfully ask your immediate help to update the system now operating to ensure a fairer deal for pensioners and all low income earners. Petitions received. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: 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 15 March 1988, namely: The construction of bus shelters on the landbridge between the new Parliament House and the provisional Parliament House. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 be restored to the Notice Paper and be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —Pursuant to standing order 109a, I give notice that, at the giving of notices tomorrow, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 4 standing in my name for the next day of sitting. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: 1. That the Export Control (Fish) Orders as amended (Amendment), as contained in Export Control Orders No. 2 of 1988, and made under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations, made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. 2. That the Meat Inspection (Victoria) Orders, as contained in the Meat Inspection Orders No. 1 of 1988, made under the Meat Inspection Orders (Regulations), made under the Meat Inspection Act 1983, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is corresponding with Ministers about various items of delegated legislation to ensure that the Committee's principles have been complied with. Today is the last day on which I can give these notices, which are intended to protect the Committee's freedom of action while the issues are under consideration. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement of the Committee's concerns about each item of legislation. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Export Control (Fish) Orders as amended (Amendment), as contained in Export Control Orders No. 2 of 1988, and made under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations, made under the Export Control Act 1982. The Committee is examining the practice in delegated legislation of incorporating into the legislation other non-legislative documents, like guidelines, methods or standards, which by virtue of incorporation, become themselves legislative in effect. The incorporation of ``existing'' documents and ``future'' documents (i.e. existing documents as amended ``from time to time'') can be subject to different legal rules which must be observed. The incorporated documents become a species of sub-delegated legislation often made by persons and bodies other than the delegated law-maker envisaged by Parliament when passing the enabling Bill. As such they should be subject to some form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee is seeking advice on these issues from the Minister for Resources, Senator the Hon. Peter Cook. The Committee is also examining a legal issue concerning the Secretary's power to approve certain sampling methods and fish ingredients which may be legislative and not merely administrative in character. If a legislative power is involved it may not, as the law currently stands, be a power capable of conferral on the Secretary. Meat Inspection (Victoria) Orders as contained in Meat Inspection Orders No. 1 of 1988, made under the Meat Inspection (orders) Regulations, made under the Meat Inspection Act 1983. The Orders appear to give the Departmental Secretary power to approve or not approve an animal food processing plant for the purposes of sterilisation of meat. A unjustified refusal to approve a particular plant could cause the proprietors commercial damage. The Committee is examining with the Minister for Resources what avenues of appeal or review should be made available to deal with such a grievance should it arise. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Constitutional Commission-First Report-27 April 1988-Volumes one and two. 2. Towards a Fairer Australia-Social Justice Under Labor-Report. 3. Child Support-Formula for Australia-Child Support Consultative Group Report. 4. Government Response to the Schedule of Outstanding Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Tabled by the President of the Senate-16 December 1987. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to have the Government reponse to the schedule of outstanding Government responses to parliamentary committee reports incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- A. LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES Constitutional and Legal Affairs 1. Commonwealth Law Making Power and the Privilege of Freedom of Speech in State Parliaments The Government's final response to the report was presented to the Senate on 5 December 1986. 2. The Role of Parliament in relation to the National Companies Scheme The Government's final response to the report was presented to the Senate on 24 November 1987. Education and the Arts 1. Examination of Annual Reports (Seventh Report) The ABC's Radio Racing Service in Queensland Examination of Annual Reports (Seventh Report) The ABC's Radio Racing Service in Queensland-Supplementary Report The Government notes resolution of the concerns about the attitude of the ABC, identified by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, in its September 1986 Report about ``The ABC's Radio Racing Service in Queensland''. This resolution is acknowledged in the Supplementary Report of June 1987. The Report concludes that ``The Committee welcomes the approach adopted by the ABC at the reconvened hearing and in particular the willingness of the Corporation's Managing Director to provide frank and comprehensive answers to the Sub-Committee's questions''. In relation to the other issues raised in the conclusion to the Second Report the Government expects that the ABC will keep these comments in mind when making major changes to radio programs in future. 2. ABC/SBS Amalgamation (Interim Report) ABC/SBS Proposed Amalgamation The Senate Select Committee on Education and the Arts has tabled two reports concerned with amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS. The ABC/SBS Amalgamation (Interim) Report clarified the Committee's Terms of Reference. The Committee's main report, ``The Proposed Amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS'', recommended that there should be a single national broadcasting organisation which could perform the functions of the present ABC and SBS. The Committee proposed that the Government consider establishing such an organisation in the early 1990's. Amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is not on the Government's agenda. On 26 April 1987 the Prime Minister announced that the Government would not be proceeding with plans for the amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS. The Prime Minister also indicated that the Government would not be reintroducing the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill 1986 and that cost savings would still be sought to offset the savings that had been anticipated from the amalgamation. On 26 February 1988, the Minister for Transport and Communications released Discussion Papers following a review of national broadcasting policy within his Department. The review examined the role and future of the national broadcasters (ABC and SBS). The Discussion Papers do not attempt in any way to reduce the significance of the role that national broadcasting plays in Australian daily life. The Government remains committed to maintaining a vibrant and independent ABC. The SBS would also continue to retain its own separate identity and remain a distinctive and independent part of the National Broadcasting System. Detailed Discussion Papers on the SBS are expected to be released by the end of May 1988. The Discussion Papers seek to stimulate public debate and assist in the resolution of the dilemmas and ambiguities concerning the roles and objectives of the ABC and the SBS. Formal decisions about future directions for the ABC and the SBS will be made after a period of wide ranging consultation and public debate. The debate would be expected to culminate in the passage of amending legislation for both the ABC and the SBS. Such legislation will address the Charter for the ABC and a Charter for the SBS. Finance and Government Operations 1. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 No Government response necessary. 2. Briefing Note on interest rates No Government response necessary. 3. Report on Parliament House Construction Authority Annual Report 1985-86 No Government response necessary. Science, Technology and the Environment 1. Examination of Annual Reports-Australian Libraries and Information Council A draft response to the report had been prepared prior to the changes in the administrative arrangements in July 1987. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce wishes to consult further with the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business and the Minister for Arts and Territories before finalising a response. 2. Technology Assessment in Australia The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce is preparing a co-ordinated response for the Government's consideration and expects to be in a position to respond to the Report early in the next Sittings. B. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEES 1. Video Material The work of the Senate Select Committee and its interim report was taken over by the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, formed on 26 October 1987 which continued to examine the censorship issue with effectively the same terms of reference as the Senate Select Committee on Video Material. The final report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material was tabled on 28 April 1988. A response to that report will be prepared in due course. 2. Animal Welfare: Dolphins and Whales in Captivity Since 1979 the Commonwealth Government has adopted a policy of protection for all cetaceans in the waters of the Australian Fishing Zone. Through its membership of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), Australia has played a leading role in efforts to ban commercial whaling worldwide. In 1982 the IWC agreed to a moratorium on commercial whaling to commence in the pelagic season of 1985-86 and the coastal season of 1986. Australia has also sought to reduce cruelty associated with whaling operations. As most of the Senate Committee's recommendations affected State and Territory responsibilities the Commonwealth sought the views of the States and the Northern Territory. State and Northern Territory legislation protects cetaceans to varying degrees: Victoria has legislated in line with the Committee's recommendations; New South Wales legislation protects all marine mammals and the capture and display of marine mammals is regulated; Queensland legislation defines cetaceans as `fish' and includes them on the list of protected species. Capture and keeping of cetacea for display purposes is allowed under permit from the Minister; Tasmanian legislation at present protects only small species of toothed whales; South Australian and Western legislation protects all cetaceans and prohibits their capture for display purposes except under permit; Northern Territory legislation presently protects all cetaceans. Three of the recommendations relate wholly or in part to areas of Commonwealth responsibility. Under the Whale Protection Act 1980 the killing, injuring, taking or interfering with cetaceans is prohibited in Australian waters, excluding the coastal waters of States and the Northern Territory. The Act also prohibits such actions by Australians anywhere in the world. In paragraph 8.9 the Committee recommends inter alia, that no permits be issued for the capture of cetaceans in Australian Commonwealth waters. It further recommends that importation of cetaceans from overseas be banned. Section 11 of the Whale Protection Act 1980 provides that the Minister may, in his discretion, grant a permit to take cetaceans for live display or kill or take cetaceans for scientific or educational purposes. Only one application for a permit to capture cetaceans in Commonwealth waters has been received and no permits have been issued since the Whale Protection Act 1980 came into force. The Act comprehends the possibility of future captures as limited circumstances may arise in which the live capture of cetaceans may be warranted, for example if there was a need for research because of a threat to the health of wild dolphin populations. With regard to the importation of cetaceans from overseas, the Government already has in place, under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, legislation which imposes stringent restrictions on the importation of live cetaceans. In paragraph 8.15 the Committee recommends that national standards for the maintenance and care of captive cetaceans be drawn up which would include standards for assessments of financial viability, natural display and educational and research components of captive cetacean display as well as covering all aspects of maintenance, handling and care of captive cetaceans. The Commonwealth, through the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, will continue to co-operate with the relevant State Governments in developing national standards but the Commonwealth does not believe that such standards should necessarily include assessment of the financial viability of oceanaria. In paragraph 8.20 the Committee recommends that a national advisory body be established comprising representatives from Federal and State Government authorities, non-government organisations and oceanaria which would advise the Federal and State Governments on matters relating to cetaceans, both captive and in the wild, and to encourage and monitor research in this area. Existing bodies such as the ANPWS and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers already provide opportunities to discuss such issues. In addition, meetings with non-government organisations are held to discuss the International Whaling Commission and national cetacean issues. 3. Human Embryo Experimentation in Australia The Government's final response to the report was presented to the Senate on 18 December 1987. 4. Private Hospitals in Australia The Government's final response to the report was presented to the Senate on 18 December 1987. C. JOINT COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs and Defence 1. Australia and the Philippines Disarmament and Arms Control Events have overtaken the recommendations in the reports of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on ``Australia and the Philippines'' and ``Disarmament and Arms Control''. Accordingly, the Government does not intend to respond to the reports. Publications 1. Review of the Cost and Distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series The Government's final response to the report was presented to the Senate on 18 December 1987. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 20 of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act, I present the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. Limited stocks of the report are available from the Table Office. I expect that the final printed version will be available from the Australian Government Publishing Service by the end of the month and additional copies will be made available to senators then. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the paper. Leave granted. Senator RICHARDSON —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. and I move: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders: (a) debate on the motion be resumed before the consideration of Government Papers; and (b) the time for debate on the motion be a maximum of one hour. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Reynolds has been unavoidably detained in Sydney because of an aircraft problem and in her absence Senator Tate will answer questions which would normally be directed to Senator Reynolds. Senator HILL —I refer the Minister for Justice to the very strong criticism of the National Crime Authority's (NCA) conduct of the investigation which led to the recently dismissed charges against Mr Al Grassby. In particular, I refer to Magistrate Williams's comment in respect of the protected witness referred to as Mr Smith: It is even more appalling that there was no attempt- I interpolate, no attempt by the National Crime Authority- to corroborate the evidence . . . of a perjurer . . . drug dealer and criminal. I ask: Why did the Authority go into the proceedings with its key witness in such a vulnerable position? In view of the obvious damage to the public standing of the NCA by this judicial criticism, has the Minister made inquiries himself as to the appropriateness of the NCA's proceedings in this case? If not, why not? Senator TATE —I have been made aware through Press reports of the criticism by the presiding magistrate on Friday, 13 May, when he dismissed conspiracy charges against Mr Grassby, including his criticism in general terms. I have not had access to specific transcripts which would allow me to acknowledge the accuracy of the quotations included in Senator Hill's question, but I take them to be correct. At this point I do not have a transcript of the magistrate's decision. Senator Puplick —Have you called for one? Senator TATE —Of course. I was about to say that both the Attorney-General and I have called for a full copy of the transcript of Mr Williams's comments. When we get those full transcripts we will be in a much better position to comment on his remarks and findings. Mr President, you will be aware that court proceedings relating to a charge of criminal defamation against Mr Grassby have yet to be completed and the magistrate is still considering whether the matter should proceed. I thought that I should put that into the answer just as a matter of caution. It causes me to be a little constrained as one of the matters subject to the proceedings in a magistrates court is still outstanding. I am also advised that the Chairman of the NCA, Mr Justice Stewart, has called for a copy of Mr Williams's judgment and has indicated that he will give it rigorous examination. Both the Attorney and I have sought a full report from Mr Justice Stewart on this whole matter. It needs to be emphasised that the decision to prosecute is not taken by the NCA; it is taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the State of New South Wales and there is that further dimension to the various discretions that are exercised before a matter goes before a magistrate in committal proceedings. As to the general standing of the National Crime Authority, I believe that the magistrate has made a serious allegation and, clearly, it would need to be looked into very carefully. The intergovernmental committee of Ministers is to meet next Thursday week in Brisbane. That will be an excellent opportunity for the Ministers concerned with the National Crime Authority in the various jurisdictions around Australia to consider a report from Mr Justice Stewart. No doubt they will be questioning him in relation to this matter. In addition, although Mr Galbally does not seem to be aware of it, this Parliament has established the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority which, as I understand it, once a reference is completed, considers itself more able than in the course of an investigation to have a full review of the operations of the National Crime Authority involved in that reference. I would imagine that Senator Hill, being a member of that Committee, would be among those pressing for that parliamentary committee to review the matters of concern that he has raised in his question. Senator GIETZELT —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade advise the Senate of action taken by the Government today in response to the situation in Vanuatu? Senator GARETH EVANS —There was extensive rioting by about 2,000 people in the capital of Vila yesterday in connection with what appears to be a long-running land dispute in Vanuatu. Reports indicate that one person was killed, a number were injured and considerable property damage was sustained in the capital. In a city with a population of fewer than 20,000, it is clear that these disturbances have been serious, including, as they did, an attempted attack on Prime Minister Lini's residence. As the Australian Prime Minister told the House of Representatives this afternoon, last night the Vanuatu Government issued an urgent request to the Australian Government to provide additional riot control equipment to the Vanuatu police in case there are further disturbances. A similar request was made to the New Zealand Government. After speaking personally to Prime Minister Lini and in consultation with the Minister for Defence and the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Prime Minister decided that it was important for Australia to respond promptly and positively to the request, coming as it did from the duly elected government of a friendly South Pacific neighbour facing a very significant problem of law and order. The Government has made clear to the Vanuatu Government that the equipment and material are being provided on the basis that they are for containment of the situation and that any use of them should be in that context-that is, used only to the extent necessary to restore order and with all due concern to minimise injury. Since the request strongly emphasised the urgency of the situation, the Government moved quickly to make the necessary arrangements. This morning a Royal Australian Air Force Hercules flew to Vila carrying gas masks, tear gas canisters and tear gas launchers. This is standard police riot control material and equipment of the kind held by Australian police forces. The Government has remained in very close contact with the New Zealand Government on the situation. In response to the request for assistance from Vanuatu, the New Zealand Government will be providing equipment and material complementary to the supplies that we are sending. Prime Minister Lange told Prime Minister Hawke today that he expected a New Zealand aircraft to depart for Vanuatu later this afternoon. Finally, let me say that I believe honourable senators will share the Government's sincere hope that the equipment which we have supplied to the Vanuatu authorities will not in the event be required. I am pleased to be able to report that, according to the most recent information available, the situation today in Vila appears to have quietened, but it does remain tense. The final matter is that of Australians in Vanuatu. I advise the Senate that our High Commission has made extensive inquiries of Australians in Vila, of whom I understand there are some 700 or so, and has reported that all Australians contacted are safe. Senator KNOWLES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer him to the purchase of two cattle stations in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, owned by the Western Australian Minister for Water Resources, the North West and Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Ernie Bridge, by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) for a sum reportedly close to $200,000. Is it a fact that the stations were not advertised on the open market? On what basis was the purchase price negotiated? Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Aboriginal community for whom the stations were bought has described the properties as broken-down and claimed that the ADC paid $60,000 too much for the land? Is it a fact that the community's chairman tried to persuade the Commission against purchasing the stations on the grounds that the cost of making them fully operational was prohibitive? Has the ADC given any commitment to the community to assist it financially and, if so, how much public money is likely to be expended to turn Mr Bridge's broken-down properties into viable operating units? Senator TATE —I will take that question on notice and refer it to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications. On his visit to the Australian ship Portland at Portland on 14 May 1988, did he hold discussions with people involved in coastal shipping, including employers, employees and their representatives? Following the inspection, what views does the Minister have about the future of Australian shipping? Senator ROBERT RAY —It would be fairly foolish to deny that I did visit the Portland because I had a very hardworking duty senator, Senator Cooney, with me on that occasion. It was interesting to see the first of the Maritime Industry Development Committee-manned ships come on line. This is a process which the Government initiated in 1985-86 and which has brought about some fairly revolutionary changes in shipping. The Portland is the first of what we hope will be many ships resulting from the recommendations of that Committee. I am sure Senator Cooney would agree that it was interesting to see that much of the class distinction that existed previously on ships around the world has disappeared on that particular ship. The captain, the officers and the crew all use the same restaurant on board these days. It is an example of where multiskilling has become the pre-eminent driving force. It is the way to the future. There has been criticism, I think justifiably from time to time, of the Australian shipping industry, shipowners and employees. However, by working together here I think they have shown fairly thoroughly that progress can be made to create a more efficient Australian shipping industry. I congratulate all those concerned with the Portland project. I hope to make many more visits in the next few years as new ships with reduced manning levels and with the subsequent efficiency gains come on line. I hope also to see a continuation of the enormous atmosphere on those ships. The officers and crew work in a cooperative rather than a competitive way. Senator COULTER —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that for many years the allowable levels of ionising radiation exposure have been based substantially on follow-up of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors? Is the Minister aware of International Commission of Radiological Protection document No. 27, which shows that exposure at these allowable levels would result in a death rate three times that in the construction industry? Is he aware that recent recalculation of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki data suggests five to 15 times the level of health effects from a given dose of radiation than formerly thought, and that this has led the National Radiological Protection Board of Great Britain to lower its allowable levels of exposure? Finally, what is the Government's position on this matter and has the National Health and Medical Research Council been instructed to review allowable levels of exposure to ionising radiation? Senator COOK —I will take most of Senator Coulter's question on notice and reply at greater length at a later time, because it is a question touching on some technical aspects and one ought to be very careful about replying off the cuff to those. However, I can say that in general terms I am aware of radiation qualifications in Australia. On the industrial health and safety side, in relation to whether people working in a mine site situation are exposed or run the risk of being exposed to radon gas or background radiation, the standards applied there are subject to very close scrutiny. That scrutiny is ongoing; it does not just satisfy itself with one examination every now and again. It is my understanding that the standards applied in those situations are below the statutory requirements. They are some background comments on the general question Senator Coulter has asked. It is worthy of a fuller reply so I propose to put it on notice and provide such a reply. Senator AULICH —I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. My question relates to the tax treatment of bonus issues of shares. Is the Minister aware that certain Australian companies have made special issues of one cent paid shares to their senior executives and have then made issues of bonus shares to the holders of those one cent paid shares on a basis exactly equivalent to the issue of bonus shares to the holders of normal fully paid shares? Can the Minister give the Senate an assurance that the Government's tax reforms have meant that income received by senior executives under this type of arrangement is taxed appropriately? What tax would have been paid on such income had this Government not introduced a capital gains tax? Does the Minister believe it is possible to `Fosterise' the taxation system? Senator WALSH —I am aware that certain Australian companies have made an issue of shares paid up to one cent and then issued bonuses on them. In September last year Elders Resources made a bonus share issue and this was referred to by Terry McCrann, a finance journalist who, as I have stated before, I am sure would be offended if anyone described him as a friend of the Australian Labor Party. Mr McCrann wrote in the Herald on 31 December about the Elders Resources issue: The executives held 5.83 million Elders Resources shares paid to just 1c each (aggregate cost thus of just $58,300). As well, those 1c paid shares had delivered the executives something like 2.2 million free fully-paid shares from two Elders Resources bonus issues in the past year. He continued: Indeed, the promised profit was made all the greater by a fortuitous issue by Elders Resources of 3.125 million 1c paid shares in the September quarter. Fortuitous, because the timing of that issue rendered the recipient(s?) eligible to participate in the one-for-three bonus issue declared by Elders Resources on September 23 with its profit announcement. That issue of 1c paid shares (total cost $31,250) effectively carried with it therefore more than one million free fully-paid shares-which only a few months later, and post-crash, can be sold to NZFP- New Zealand Forest Products- for more than $2.5 million. Better than an evening locked in a padded cell with Mark Jackson. I can assure the Senate that under the present taxation arrangements a proper amount of tax would be levied on the profit from that share transaction. Where bonus shares with a par value of 50c are distributed, that 50c is treated as a dividend. If it is unfranked, the recipient has to pay the tax on it; if it is franked, the company, of course, has already paid the tax on it. Where such a share is sold at a price above 50c, the seller is liable for capital gains taxation on the capital gain in the standard way. It is well known, of course, that a senior executive of Elders Resources Ltd-indeed, I think its Chairman-has been calling for the abolition of the capital gains tax. He also happens to be President of the Liberal Party of Australia. Leaving aside the morality of the issues themselves by the people who are managing these companies, such gains would remain tax free if the present Government's capital gains tax policy were to be abolished. The one exception, of course, is shares that would have had to be held for 12 months under the pre-existing policy because section 26aaa would otherwise have caught them. Since then, it has been proposed by the Opposition that a capital gains tax be effectively phased out over five years. So, in the past all that Mr Elliott and his mates, who have cleaned up millions over the last few years at the expense of other shareholders in Elders and associated companies, had to do was wait and hold shares for 12 months. At present, under this Government's policy, they have to pay capital gains tax on them. All they would have to do, if the Opposition were ever elected and enacted its policy, would be to hang on to their shares for five years and pay no capital gains tax at all. This is no doubt a major reason why the Opposition has adopted that policy. In any period in that five-year holding period, the capital gains tax liability under the Opposition's proposal would decline by 20 per cent for each year the shares were held. I guess this helps to explain why Mr Elliott seems to have shelved his parliamentary ambition-he can get his policy implemented through the existing Liberal Party leadership anyway. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the Aboriginal Development Commission and to last Friday's media release by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I ask: First, does the action of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in dismissing eight of the 10 commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission mean that the Government will tolerate as representatives of Aboriginal Australians only people who go along unquestionably with its discredited policies? Secondly, has the Government sought undertakings from the new appointees announced by the Minister to cooperate fully with the restructuring of the administration of Aboriginal affairs? Finally, is the Minister aware that Mr Ken Colbung, Chairman of the Western Australian Aboriginal Advisory Committee, has described the eight appointees as `scabs' both to their own people and in terms of trade union principle? Is there any reason to doubt Mr Colbung's view that the commissioners were sacked by Mr Hand because, as Mr Colbung said, `they dared to hold an opinion different to his' and that this action does not augur well if the proposed new body is created under the direct control of the Minister? Senator TATE —I do not accept some of the assumptions and implications in the question. I certainly do not agree with some of the comments that the honourable senator attributed to another person in relation to the dismissal by the Minister of certain part time commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission. In particular, I refute any suggestion that the Minister has attempted to put in place a body which is not going to exercise the proper independence which it should if it is to fulfil its responsibilities and duties under the new arrangements envisaged by the Minister. In relation to this matter of the dismissals, honourable senators will be aware that, as I understand it, there is a matter before the Federal Court of Australia. The part time commissioners who have been sacked have obtained an injunction restraining the Minister from carrying this dismissal into full effect. Until that matter is resolved in the Federal Court, it should not be canvassed in this chamber as it might otherwise be. The part time commissioners are seeking a ruling on the legality of the dismissals. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the point that the matter is being pursued in the courts but, in the light of the Minister's first response this afternoon, I ask him: Why did the Minister sack the eight commissioners if the reason was that of the independent representation of the Aboriginal people of Australia? Senator TATE —As I understand it, the Minister dismissed the eight part time commissioners because of their refusal to participate in the implementation of government policy. But these matters will be subject to action in the courts and I really believe that this is not a proper forum in which to canvass them. Senator BLACK —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to an article in today's Brisbane Courier-Mail reporting the Queensland Premier's claims that proposed Federal cutbacks in State grants mean that his Budget review committee has begun a tough assessment of options and that new taxes are being considered for Mr Ahern's first State Budget to be brought down in August. How much of Queensland's financial problems are not related to the fact that Mr Ahern did not get everything he wanted at last week's Premiers Conference? Finally, is it the Commonwealth's responsibility to bail out the Queensland Government in respect of these financial difficulties? Senator WALSH —The second part of the question referred to the extent to which Queensland's economic problems are related to the fact that Mr Ahern did not get his own way at the Premiers Conference last week. If Mr Ahern could tap into an unlimited supply of free money from the Commonwealth Government, undoubtedly that would overcome Queensland's economic problems-leaving aside what that would do to the rest of Australia. The fact is that Queensland had very severe economic problems for a considerable period before last week's Premiers Conference. Honourable senators may recall that on 9 September I tabled a draft submission to be presented to the Queensland Cabinet, which was signed by the Under Treasurer, which revealed among other things that the State was showing prospective deficits of-and I am using round figures-$160m next year and $215m the following year. Even that was based on some pretty heroic assumptions, such as no growth in the number of public servants; no new programs, tax concessions, special major projects or work programs; no major national disaster or strikes; no further cuts in Commonwealth funding; and no adverse results of the Commonwealth Grants Commission's relativity review. It was prepared on the basis of a complete escape from the facts of life. The only comparable advice on a government's Budget position, which has been so seriously mismanaged except on a larger scale, is the advice prepared by Senator Stone in 1983 in his capacity as Secretary to the Treasury, advice prepared for the Liberal-National Party coalition Government had it been returned to office. Senator Stone, among other things, said: When the estimated cost in 1983-84 of the new policy proposals announced in the policy speech is added, the prospect is for a Budget deficit of almost $10 billion. A Budget deficit of almost $10 billion, wrote Senator Stone as Secretary to the Treasury. He continued: Such a deficit would be equivalent to 5 1/2 per cent of projected gross domestic product, the highest in Australian post-war history. There were many other equally important passages in Senator Stone's paper, one of which is: First, the magnitude of the fiscal imbalance is unprecedented in Australia during peace time, as is the level of Government spending. The sort of financial shambles which the coalition Government left behind it when it was ignominiously kicked out of office in March 1983 is comparable to the financial shambles which exists in Queensland now and which existed in Queensland long before the Premiers Conference. If Queensland really wants to do something to improve its financial position and also, as many States have argued, to eliminate duplications by Commonwealth and State governments of essentially the same activity, I suggest that it flog off its Agent-General's Office in the Strand in London-an example that the rest of the States might well take up. Collectively, they would probably get $100m for the properties that they hold there, which would help them out with their Budgets and which would also remove the unnecessary duplication of efforts already made by the Commonwealth Government on behalf of the nation as a whole. Senator CHANEY —I address my question to the Minister for Justice. It follows the question asked by Senator Hill and relates to the criticism of the National Crime Authority's conduct of the investigation which led to the recent dismissal of charges against Mr Al Grassby and the Minister's statement that he has called for a transcript of the remarks. Is the Minister aware that this is not the first such case to arise? In particular, is the Minister aware that on 11 March 1988 Stipendiary Magistrate Mr C. A. Johansen dismissed conspiracy charges in South Australia against the suspended Assistant Police Commissioner (Crime), Mr Kevin Harvey, and two others? Is the Minister aware that the charges were laid after investigations by the National Crime Authority and that the magistrate said that the prosecution case would never have succeeded before a jury and that it was full of weaknesses? He said: The charge could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt to a properly instructed and reasonable jury. Did the Minister investigate how an NCA case could have been pursued before the courts with such obvious weaknesses? Was the Minister concerned at the loss of public support of the NCA which can follow from such judicial comments and indeed results? What did the Minister do about that case? Senator TATE —I am aware of the case in South Australia where a charge brought against a police officer was dismissed. Of course, that is the whole purpose of committal proceedings, namely, to sort out those matters which, in the opinion of the magistrate, would not be likely to result in a properly instructed jury presented with all the facts finding a case proved beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, that is one of the great strengths of our legal system. Senator Hill —You would expect it to occur on odd occasions but it is a different story when we are having a sequence of events. Senator TATE —I was just about to say that a strength of our system is that committal proceedings, presided over by a magistrate, act as a sifting process. On occasion one would expect those committal proceedings to result in the accused walking away with the presumption of innocence vindicated. I also made the point in response to Senator Hill's question that one must bear in mind that, whilst the National Crime Authority carries out investigations and puts together a brief of evidence, the NCA itself does not decide that a prosecution should take place. There is interposed after that the independent discretion of the prosecuting authority in the State concerned-and indeed no doubt that was the case in South Australia. So, there are various stages which are appropriate and which were followed in the case referred to. As to the question of the impact of these cases on the general reputation of the National Crime Authority, I think that that is a matter for judgment, and I would expect-although naturally I am not privy to this-that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority would have had an opportunity to canvass these matters, certainly in relation to the matter of 11 March, with the National Crime Authority when it was carrying out its assessment of the Authority's effectiveness and, indeed, making a judgment as to its proper discharge of the role granted to it under legislation of this Parliament. I would imagine that, when he goes to the intergovernmental committee meeting in Brisbane next Thursday week, the Attorney-General will be canvassing the whole history of the successes or otherwise of those matters that have been brought before courts as a result of National Crime Authority investigations and compilings of briefs. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the Minister for Justice that I asked him, with respect to the case dealt with by Stipendiary Magistrate Johansen, whether he took any action following that case. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that he has said this afternoon that he has called for a transcript in a case where the magistrate said that it was appalling that there was no attempt by the National Crime Authority to corroborate the evidence of a perjurer, drug dealer and criminal, and the fact that the South Australian case was said to have been fatally flawed by the evidence of the prosecution's principal witness, who was shown to be inconsistent and unreliable. I ask the Minister again: Was any action taken by him as Minister to investigate that case to see whether there was in fact an appropriate contribution by the National Crime Authority, or is this a matter that he has simply let go over the shoulder? Senator TATE —I did not make a particular request for details of the action of the National Crime Authority in relation to that matter, and I will inquire of the Attorney-General whether he made any such inquiry. I do not believe that it is fair to characterise the Government's attitude as one of indifference or of allowing these matters to pass by. One was aware of it, and indeed the best opportunity for carrying out our responsibilities in relation to this matter will be presented at the intergovernmental committee meeting of Ministers next Thursday week, when I can assure the honourable senator these matters will be canvassed with all Ministers and members of the National Crime Authority. Senator DEVLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources. I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 29 April 1988 in which the Minister is reported to have said that the Government's energy policies are clearly working. Can the Minister indicate to the Senate the Government's energy policies and identify the evidence on which he based his statement that the Government's energy policies are clearly working? Senator COOK —I think that article appeared in the paper on the day that it did because it followed the tabling in this chamber by me of Energy 2000, the Government's document setting out its audit of Australia's total energy resources, and also setting out a series of proposals on policy options for the Government between now and the end of this century. I believe that that is a seminal reference document on this subject and provides the answer to the first part of the question. However, there has been some public debate about the Government's approach to seeking to obtain security of supply for oil resources in Australia rather than pursuing an illusion of energy self-sufficiency through trying to generate self-sufficiency in petroleum. As a country of medium prospectivity and with all the other economic inputs, such as the price of a barrel of oil and so on, it would be an illusion to chase that kind of energy self-sufficiency objective. In order to give a fuller answer to the Senate on our energy trade balance, I point out that the Energy 2000 policy statement reports that, between now and the end of this century, if we net out the positive contribution that energy exports will make by reducing them by the amount that it will cost us as a country to import oil, energy will contribute $60 billion to Australia's balance of payments account. That is made up of $15 billion from liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas exports; about $30 billion from steaming coal exports; about $40 billion from coke and coal; and $9 billion from exports of uranium. On the general aspect of how we are travelling in terms of investment-- Senator Chaney —How many mines will that $9 billion come from? Senator COOK —It needs to come from only two mines, because they have a capacity to ratchet up their production if necessary, if there is a bigger demand than anticipated. That capacity is well understood and known by our client countries. Senator Chaney —But we could sell even more. Senator COOK —The existing capacity will allow us to sell whatever is required. I turn now to some major announcements by energy companies in Australia which I think give some degree of confidence to the Government that its policy settings are correct. Only recently the Shell company announced an investment program of $2.6 billion covering all its activities in Australia. That is a major investment in extra refining capacity and distribution, as well as an investment of $1 billion in production and exploration by that company in the search for and exploitation of oil resources in this country. Recently the World Board of the Texaco Oil Development Company visited Australia and in discussions its Vice-President, Mr Earle L. Johnson, indicated that in that company's view Australia is a country in which Texaco wishes to increase its investment by becoming an active bidder for exploration acreage here. He also said that he thought that our tax regime was benign compared with countries similar to Australia. The Bureau of Mineral Resources will spend $6m over the next five years on seismic surveys to gauge the petroleum and mineral potential of the Canning Basin in Western Australia. That will enable the Government to consider further releases of exploration acreage in that area, it will provide us with a better seismic profile of the geology of that region and it will enable us to reassess our geological expectations of oil discovery. Further, the Treasurer's decision in January to deregulate foreign investment in offshore oil production, in what has become known as the Saladin or Wapet-West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd-decision I think is attracting a great deal more overseas interest and investment in Australia. Just recently the North West Shelf project announced that it has let contracts in Australia worth over $70m for four designs for the Goodwyn platform in anticipation of being able to give the next phase, the export phase, of that project the go-ahead early next year. Interestingly, those contracts went mainly to Australian companies. Only one, for a minor design component of a major aspect of the project, went overseas-to San Francisco-and, if that is proved up, the work will be done here in Australia. In terms of general investment and commentary by Australian and overseas countries on the energy profile for this country, it is indeed very comforting from the Government's point of view. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is to the Minister for Justice. I refer him to reports last week and at the weekend about grave new allegations of bribery and cover-up associated with the notorious Enmore conspiracy case and the so-called Sydney Love Boat affair. In particular, I refer to the report that two senior Australian Labor Party (ALP) members of Federal Parliament have been named in a police report as accomplices in a $150,000 cover-up attempt. Is the National Crime Authority (NCA) still investigating, as it reportedly was doing in November 1986, the alleged payments to Mr Joe Meissner-a member of the ALP-to withdraw from sale a package of documents, tapes and photographs arising out of the Enmore case? Or has the Enmore-Love Boat scandal been declared off limits for the NCA because of the reported involvement of the two senior ALP figures concerned? Senator TATE —I refute absolutely any assertion made by Senator Michael Baume that the National Crime Authority could be frightened off anything properly within the scope of a reference or indeed that could be undertaken in pursuit of its general powers of investigation as a result of being warned off for some political reason or some barrier being raised to its operations because some undue political influence was brought to bear. That is totally unthinkable for anyone who knows the character of the various NCA members and in particular Mr Justice Stewart. I think even those members of the Opposition who sit on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority would join with me in refuting any inference whatsoever that they could be dissuaded through political pressure from carrying out an investigation into a matter properly within their province. Indeed, knowing Mr Justice Stewart as I do, it would probably redouble his efforts. So I completely refute the colouring and tainting in the question raised by Senator Baume. As to the question of whether any particular investigation is being conducted at the moment, I take that on notice. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his clarifying statement but I ask him to perhaps clarify a little more. Can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that all relevant Federal authorities will cooperate fully with any inquiry by the New South Wales Government's Independent Commission Against Corruption into this matter. Senator TATE —Honourable senators will be aware that, in relation to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, the various Federal authorities-the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority-not on my instructions but certainly with my encouragement, have aided Mr Fitzgerald in the conduct of that inquiry and have benefited it. I know that they would adopt this general principle in response to any proper request received by them from the properly constituted authority undertaking a proper inquiry. I support them in making independent decisions to help in any such investigation. Senator Michael Baume —No unequivocal assurance. Senator TATE —Oh, fair go! Senator JENKINS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training aware that there is widespread discrimination in Australia in the area of employment against the mature age unemployed? Is the Minister further aware that this form of discrimination is particularly likely to disadvantage people who are at risk to other forms of discrimination, such as mature age unemployed people of ethnic origin, mature age unemployed women, mature age unemployed Aboriginal people and mature age unemployed disabled people? What steps does the Government plan to take to counter this discrimination and to give the mature age unemployed equality of opportunity on merit in the area of employment? Given that age discrimination is a very significant form of discrimination in Australia not so far covered by specific legislation, does the Government intend to amend existing legislation or introduce new legislation to provide penalties for discrimination against individuals solely on the ground of age? Senator WALSH —Essentially, I have been asked whether the Government intends to legislate for a perfect world. The answer is: Not to my knowledge because I do not know how one could enforce such legislation anyway let alone, to be more specific, prove that there had been discrimination on the ground of age against somebody seeking employment. I remind Senator Jenkins and the rest of the Australian Democrats that the only long term cure to the problems she has allegedly identified is full employment. A return to full employment is the only real cure for the problems is that Senator Jenkins claims exist. I remind Senator Jenkins and the rest of the Democrats that, if they had their way, far from moving to full employment, we would undoubtedly have higher unemployment because of their propensity to want to close down half the industries in the country which can pay their way. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It refers to an article in the Brisbane Sun newspaper on 5 May 1988 which indicated that a group of Japanese performers in Brisbane for World Expo 88 bought a house for $350,000. Do Treasury guidelines prevent the purchase of residential property by non-Australians except in special circumstances and, if so, what are those circumstances? Have the details of this particular purchase been investigated and will it be allowed to proceed? If the sale is contrary to Government guidelines, will any action be taken against the real estate agent who arranged the sale? Senator WALSH —Last September the foreign investment guidelines for the purchase of residential property by foreigners were changed. There are three special categories of exemption from that restriction. The first is for Australian citizens resident abroad, the second is for intending migrants who have received approval to take up permanent residence in Australia and the third category is for foreign companies seeking accommodation for their senior executives while they are resident in Australia. I have seen the article to which Senator Colston refers and it seems to me that the particular purchase fits into the last of those three categories. I will refer the article to the Treasurer's office for confirmation that this is indeed the case and for any other comments that the Treasurer wishes to make about Senator Colston's question. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister for Justice to the decision made last week by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to issue a summons against the Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), Mr Stephen Loosley, for a breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act for the non-disclosure of a $10,000 election campaign donation from Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd in 1987. I also refer the Minister to the Director's statement: On the basis of the police report no charge against any other person is warranted. Does the Minister recall that the donation was sent first to the then Federal President of the ALP and former member for Port Adelaide, Mr Mick Young, who initially explained the non-disclosure as `a fairly honest mistake'? Does he also recall that the Federal member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Jim Snow, received election campaign funds from the New South Wales Labor Party the same day as the Harris-Daishowa donation was acknowledged by the ALP? I ask: In view of these involvements by Mr Young and Mr Snow, has the Minister satisfied himself that no charge against any other person is warranted? Now that the DPP has made his decision, will the Minister table the Australian Federal Police report on which this claim is based? Senator TATE —The short answer is no, I do not intend to substitute myself for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, who, on the basis of the authority conferred on him by this Parliament, has come to a decision based on his fair reading of the Australian Federal Police report. The idea that I might surmise this or that or that Senator Short should substitute himself for the Director of Public Prosecutions would, quite frankly, fill all ordinary citizens with horror. As an active working politician, I certainly do not intend to substitute myself for the independent statutory authority which this Parliament has established to make the decisions which Mr Temby has made. I am quite sure-in so far as Mr Temby has satisfied himself-that the decision that no particular charges be laid against any other person is utterly proper. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Consumer Affairs aware of newspaper reports that paint products containing high levels of lead are being imported? In view of their toxic potential, what action can be taken to reduce the hazards posed by such products? Senator BOLKUS —I think the report to which Senator Zakharov refers appeared in the Melbourne Herald some time in the last couple of weeks. It referred to the importation of tubes of artists' supplies, the contents of which seem to be quite safe but the allegation is that the tubes themselves have a lead content of approximately 94 per cent. I understand the actual paint was and is non-toxic and does not present the same sorts of hazards to the users. Obviously in this instance the users on the whole would be young people. There is in fact an Australian standard which covers toys. That standard covers both the content of the toy and accessible coating material in respect of toys. In relation to this material, the standard is that a component of lead of not more than 0.25 per cent be allowed in the actual coating material. As a consequence, the allegations seem to indicate that there may in fact be a breach of that standard. I have asked the Office of Consumer Affairs to arrange for tests of those artists' supplies to ensure that the standard is not breached. In this context I should also say that the standard does have within it a criterion for assessment and determination of the level of lead in a product. It also has within it a criterion for determining whether that lead is accessible in the normal use, so I think that we have a pretty effective regime in terms of assessing the offensive material and whether it breaches the standard involved. In going to the broader aspect of Senator Zakharov's question, I should mention that I have already asked the Office to inquire into the need for a mandatory safety standard covering children's paints and crayons in general because from time to time there seem to be particular problems in this area as well. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister for Transport and Communications aware that 9 June 60 years ago is the day when Sir Charles Kingsford Smith landed in Australia after his achievement of being the first pilot to fly across the Pacific Ocean? Is he also aware that special celebrations of this achievement are to be held in America? In view of the fact that Australia is such a large country and aviation plays a very important role for travel in it, not just for members of parliament throughout Australia who could hardly manage to carry out their duties without it, and the fact that Sir Charles Kingsford Smith was an Australian aviator, is the Government planning to give special recognition to this feat by `Smithy' 60 years ago? Could consideration be given to the issue of a special stamp to mark this very important occasion? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think it is a little late to get a special stamp organised, but I will certainly give consideration to some appropriate way of commemorating the flight in question which, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen rightly said, was a great occasion in the history of this country. Senator SCHACHT —My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Does the Government endorse the reported claims made by Mr Paul Hogan that Australia cannot handle any more United States tourists? Senator Collins —Handle them in what sense? Senator RICHARDSON —I shall ignore Senator Collins's interjection. I will allow him to tell the Senate how he handles United States tourists. I will not venture a comment as to how the rest of us might move forward. I turn to the remarks of Mr Hogan on the Barbara Walters show in the United States. He said: I will still do another one or two- referring to commercials for the Australian Government- and I am sort of saying to sort of pull your heads in a little because we have all the tourists we can handle . . . Yeah, stay at home! Well it's getting close to that stage of doing a commercial saying look, come next year, there's no room for you at the moment. All I can say is that there is still room at the inn. As far as I can read it, obviously Mr Hogan, in appearing on the Barbara Walters show, was engaging in the sort of humour which has made him famous. Apparently the reaction in the United States is to take it as part of Hogan's humour. Indeed, the reaction from the United States so far suggests that it has been excellent publicity for Australia, making it, once again, a sought-after destination. So I do not think that we will worry too much about it. Certainly, the travel industry in the United States seems to have the view that the interview will attract more tourists. Given that last year we had over 300,000 visitors from the United States, which was an increase of 26 per cent on the previous year, and that this year we expect more than 400,000, I believe that, once again, Hogan has done Australia a favour and we ought not to take this too seriously. Senator SHEIL —I draw the attention of the Minister for Transport and Communications to the fact that Coolangatta Airport on the Gold Coast is one of the busiest in the country, with a flight path directly above densely populated suburbs. Is the Minister aware that Coolangatta Airport has no radar facilities and that traffic controllers use binoculars to sight and guide aircraft for landing and take-off manoeuvres? Is the Minister aware that because of the situation there was a recent near-miss at Coolangatta when a DC9 jet aborted a landing about 30 seconds before a 737 jet landed from the opposite end of the runway? Does the Minister intend to take action to equip Coolangatta Airport with a new aircraft control tower, radar equipment and an instrument landing system before there is a tragedy? Senator GARETH EVANS —There was an occurrence on Friday, 6 May, at Coolangatta Airport involving two aircraft approaching the airport to land from opposite directions. Air traffic control was monitoring the situation at all times and was satisfied that full aircraft separation could be maintained throughout, and indeed that was the case, as a subsequent investigation by the Bureau of Air Safety has established. I am advised that, after consultation with air traffic control, the pilot of one aircraft elected to remain in the aerodrome circuit and to make another approach to land. When that decision was made, the other aircraft was still more than five nautical miles from the other end of the strip, so no breakdown of separation occurred of a kind that would have caused any alarm, or no breakdown of separation occurred in the sense that there was any variation from the minimum standards of horizontal and vertical separation that are required. It is correct that Coolangatta Airport has no radar, but I am advised that that has no relevance to the particular occurrence to which Senator Sheil referred in his question. Brisbane radar provides service down to approximately 4,000 feet over Coolangatta from where aircraft are processed into the Coolangatta Airport traffic circuit. Separation of aircraft on the Coolangatta runway, including all take-off and landing clearances, is effected by visual means, as indeed it is at all controlled airports in Australia-for example, at Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth. As I have already indicated, although the presence of radar is not relevant to this incident or occurrence to which Senator Sheil referred, I take the opportunity to advise the Senate that under the radar enhancement program currently in train, radar coverage down to ground level will be provided at Coolangatta by the early 1990s. Senator BEAHAN —My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs and follows an earlier question by Senator Short to the Minister for Justice. Can the Minister inform me how many cases of failing to disclose donations are currently being pursued by the Australian Electoral Commission? Senator ROBERT RAY —At the moment, some 23 cases are being pursued by the Electoral Commission for the same offence as Mr Loosley has been summonsed on. They are the more minor offence of failing to complete and return a donations list. One further case is being investigated of an individual who may or may not be charged in future with wilfully supplying false information to the Commission which, of course, is the major charge under the Act and involves a $10,000 fine. These investigations will not be attended by the same cheap publicity as has afflicted Mr Loosley, to the point where it is raised again today, prejudicing his chances of a fair defence in these matters. We have said all along that the appropriate methods will be followed in these cases and they have been. It is a pity that the other side does not acknowledge that. We said that there would be no impediment to the police inquiry and there was none. We said that there would be no impediment to the Director of Public Prosecutions making up his mind on the evidence and recommending whether to charge or not. I could quite easily have got up in this chamber time and time again and raised the Carpentaria case in the Northern Territory, involving 29 times more money and with direct links to the Liberal and National parties in Queensland, or their combined name-the National-Liberal Party of Queensland. We have not sought to do so. We have sought to let that investigation go along fairly, not attended by cheap publicity. Senator Collins —Why haven't we done so? Senator ROBERT RAY —I notice that one of my colleagues does not necessarily agree with me on the cheap publicity angle, but I am saying that we in the Government at least have allowed it to proceed fairly. I am thinking of a Press release of some weeks ago. In the end, the Carpentaria case will follow the same procedures. When the police investigation is finalised, if there are charges they will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We will not see the Government putting out a Press release every second day proclaiming people's guilt, as Senator Short, Mr Reith and others have done. All they have done is show me that they are not really interested in the case, but in cheap political point scoring. That is fair enough, as long as they do not dress it up in a sense of moral outrage that is usually accompanied by those Press releases. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 10 May Senator Macklin asked me a series of questions concerning the Government's response to a United States offer of subsidised malt to Peru. The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided me with an answer in the following terms: As to the honourable senator's first question, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has not ceased representations to the United States Government concerning the possible effects of the recent United States offer of subsidised malt to Peru on Australian sales of malt to the Peruvian market and will continue representations, as necessary, to protect Australian exports. In regard to the second and third questions as to why the Department has ceased protesting about this matter and how many media outlets have been contacted asking them to cool it on the story, the answer is none in either case. As to the final question about actions taken by the United States to mitigate the damage done to Australian malt sales, the answer is that the United States Government has assured the Australian Government that it will take steps to ensure that the export enhancement program malt initiative does not endanger Australia's malt export to Peru. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I raise a matter concerning supplementary answers to questions. Unfortunately, the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) seems to have left the chamber so I will raise the matter with the Minister at the table, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), who perhaps could raise it with Senator Tate. Last Tuesday on the special sitting day, Senator Tate was asked three questions which related to the matters in Western Australia in regard to the sale by Mr Holmes a Court of his controlling stake in Bell Group-19.9 per cent of shares to the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission (SGIC) and 19.9 per cent to Bond Corporation-other questions relating to the SGIC guaranteeing payment of $150m to Mr Holmes a Court for convertible bonds held by his family interest and another question-I will not mention it-which is reported on page 2212 of Hansard. I would have expected, as in fact this side expected, that Senator Tate, having not given us answers to those questions but indicating that he would seek a full brief, would have risen following Question Time in order to give us answers to those questions. I am disappointed to see that Senator Tate has left the chamber with a stack of books about 18 inches high but with no answers to the questions. I can assure Senator Tate and the Senate that tomorrow we shall be pressing for answers to these questions. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the procedures laid down by the resolutions of the Senate of 25 February 1987, Senator Walters, by letter dated 5 May 1988 and received by me on 10 May 1988, raised a matter of privilege. Under the Senate's resolutions I am required to determine whether a motion to refer the matter to the Senate Committee of Privileges should have precedence of other business, having regard to the following criteria: (a) the principle that the Senate's power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt. The essence of the matter raised by Senator Walters is an allegation that the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material published a misleading account of the proceedings and report of that Committee. The wilful publication of a misleading report of proceedings of a House or a committee is one of the categories of contempts identified in the Senate's resolutions of 25 February. Having regard to criterion (a), I think that the matter raised is capable of being treated by the Senate as a serious matter. Having regard to criterion (b), however, I believe that there is an important consideration which dictates that I should not give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. The matter raised concerns a member of the House of Representatives. The only remedy for an alleged contempt by a member of that House is action by that House. The Senate cannot deal with it. It would be constitutionally wrong, in my view, for the Senate or its Privileges Committee even to attempt to consider the matter raised. For that reason I have determined that a motion on the matter should not have precedence. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.55) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Mr President, while I am naturally disappointed with your ruling that the chairman of a joint committee bears no responsibility to those members of that committee in this chamber, I accept your decision but believe that the Senate deserves an explanation of the reasons why I took the action I did. Following the tabling of the first volume of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material on 28 April this year I could not understand why it was that while the television reports of the recommendations of the Committee were correct-some of the members of that Committee indeed were able to be interviewed to give the correct version-every written report in the media was wrong. Most of the Committee's recommendations were unanimous. But the majority of the Committee voted against X-rated videos being retained in the Australian Capital Territory. I quote from the report when it discussed the new category of non-violent erotica (NVE) and the proposal that X-rated material should be included in that category. The report stated: Rather than entrench this material into the community we recommend that the Commonwealth Government introduce substantive legislation to ensure that this material is refused classification for the purposes of the Commonwealth laws. Very clearly the Committee itself chose to refuse classification for X-rated material. Again, when talking about X-classified material being included in the NVE classification, the majority of the Committee-in other words, the Committee-said: The proposal runs counter to the overwhelming burden of evidence submitted to the Committee concerning the harmful effects of this material and is inconsistent with the finding of the Committee. Mr President, as you can imagine, I was surprised, to say the last, when I read the next day headlines such as the examples I sent to you. One article in the Tasmanian Examiner was headed `Review on video nasties blasted', and stated: A federal parliamentary committee on videos had ignored evidence that most children who came into contact with violent and sexually explicit material did so in their own home, it was claimed yesterday. The Australian Council for Children's Film and Television's television officer Mrs Barbara Biggins said that in making recommendations on video classifications, film censorship and video displays the select committee had failed to remove violent material and sexually explicit videos from the home market. Again, an Age editorial was headed `Pornographers get the green light'. We also had several other headlines in the Age. One article headed `Erotic videos get new rating' stated: People who enjoy non-violent, sexually explicit videos might soon be allowed watch them, at least by the Federal Government. After a three-year investigation, a joint parliamentary committee has recommended-but only by six to five-that sexually explicit videos be rated as NVE. I could go on for a considerable time quoting newspaper headlines such as `Ban on hard-core video may go'. Of course, we then have the various letters written to the papers. Eventually the Australian newspaper in an article headed `Porn videos outcry grows', stated: Dismay and disbelief can best describe the reaction of most Australians to the possible return of hard-core pornography to cinemas and video shops. I received a considerable amount of mail, newsletters and Press releases from people who had read the reports in the newspapers and who believed that the majority of the Committee had recommended that X-rated videos should be retained. I was eventually handed a copy of the Press release of the Chairman of the Committee. I would like to quote from that because this is obviously where the confusion arose. The Chairman of the Committee, Dr Klugman, issued this Press release on 28 April. It said: The report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material was tabled in Federal Parliament today. The Committee recommends that a new category called NVE (non-violent erotica) be used in the classification of videos. The new category is to contain the material included in the current censorship classification X. That is a complete falsehood. The Committee did not at any stage recommend that. (Quorum formed) The Committee did not recommend that at all; indeed, it recommended the opposite. The Press release went on: Dr Klugman, Chairman of the Committee, said: `The label NVE will clearly identify the type of material included in the category-erotic, but containing no violence'. `Many people are under the erroneous impression that videos given an X rating under the current censorship code may contain violence, child pornography and bestiality.' This is not the case. `It became evident to the Committee that a new category was necessary to reflect clearly the actual nature of the erotica allowed in the ACT and the Northern Territory,' he said. Videos rated X by the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board are not currently available for hire from video outlets in any of the States. Dr Klugman in his Press release then made a very erroneous and false statement: The Committee, on balance, found that claims of harm from viewing sexually explicit material were not substantiated and therefore did not warrant the prohibition of such material. The question of a ban needed to be weighed against the rights of adults to see, hear and read what they wished, subject to safeguards for those under eighteen years of age. This view was not accepted by all members of the Committee, some of whom wished to prohibit the circulation of any video rated as X (or NVE, under the new proposal) by the Film Censorship Board. To use the wording of the Standing Orders, I believe that the Chairman wilfully caused to be published false reports of the proceedings of our Committee. He has made a very deliberate misrepresentation. The Chairman has spoken in his Press release about the minority report to which he was a party, not of the majority report to which I was a party. I object very strongly to his Press release being put out. The Chairman went on in his Press release: We have recommended that it be an offence for anyone to show a minor a video rated R or NVE without the consent of a parent or guardian. The Press release then refers to the other recommendations-recommendations which were, of course, correct. Because I really could not believe that anyone would so deliberately misrepresent the findings of a committee, I decided to write to the President, and I am sure the Senate would be interested in the letter I wrote. It reads: Dear Mr President, As Deputy Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, I am writing to you on a matter of Privilege in accordance with the Resolution of the Senate of the 25th February, 1988. Following the tabling of the Report of that Committee, on 28th April, 1988 the Chairman put out the attached news release. This is the news release that I have just read. My letter goes on: In the second paragraph, Dr Klugman said `The new category is to contain the material included in the current censorship classification X'. This is not correct, in fact, the majority of the members of the Committee voted against current X classification videos being available under any heading. Again, in the first paragraph of the second page, Dr Klugman says `The Committee, on balance, found that claims of harm from viewing sexually explicit material were not substantiated and therefore did not warrant the prohibition of such material'. This is totally incorrect. The Committee voted to ban x-rated sexually explicit material videos. As a result of the Chairman's press release, the reports in the major newspapers were incorrect, and I enclose examples for your information. As Deputy Chairman of the Committee, I am very concerned that the Chairman so blatantly has misled the public about the recommendations of this Joint Committee, and believe it to be a breach of privilege of the Parliament. I believe that the Chairman has wilfully and totally misled the media in the Press release. He has done it very deliberately and falsely and it is for these reasons that, as Deputy Chairman, I have taken this action. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(4.07) —I had not intended to speak on this matter; I was not aware that it was coming up and I regret I have not seen the Press release referred to. I do feel that this whole debate has got out of control. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, I can say to the Senate that opinions on controversial issues were very divided. That division is to some extent shown in the recommendations; but as voting numbers cannot be shown in recommendations, perhaps it is not evident to the public at large. The first of the Committee's recommendations states: We recommend that a new category NVE (non-violent erotica) be instituted. From memory, a six to five majority voted for that recommendation, and I am sure everyone would agree that that is hardly a majority at all. It is most likely that that vote does reflect the diversity of views in the community on this particular recommendation. The second recommendation states: We recommend the new category contain that material as defined in the current classification of X. After that recommendation it is clearly stated in the report: The Committee draws attention to the fact that a majority of the Committee disagrees with the proposal contained in this Recommendation and abstained from voting on it in the light of certain procedural constraints. Their response and recommendation are set out at the conclusion of this chapter. In other words, it became a recommendation because it had a majority vote although the majority of the Committee actually abstained from voting on it. There again there is an obvious diversity of view. I believe the community does not appreciate that by a very slim majority of one vote it was recommended that a new category, non-violent erotica, or NVE, be instituted. In reality, a majority did not recommend that that NVE category reflect the current classification of X. Senator Walters —The Chairman said it did. Senator Zakharov —The majority of those who voted did. Senator JENKINS —So it is a Clayton's majority. I think we could all agree on that. Where the majority of the Committee abstains-- Senator Archer —Was it a majority or a minority? Senator JENKINS —The majority who voted agreed with it, but the majority actually abstained. Senator Bolkus —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I am having trouble hearing the speaker because of all of the interjections. Senator Puplick —Mr Acting Deputy President, I also take a point of order. What is before the Senate at the moment is a motion for the Senate to take note of the statement of the President regarding a question of privilege. It is not a debate on a report per se. The Senate has before it a motion to take note of a statement by the President as to a ruling that he has given on the question of privilege. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that remarks in this debate should be directed, therefore, to the President's statement in relation to the question of privilege which was raised by Senator Walters. It should not be a general debate on the recommendations or otherwise of a report which will be debated at some later stage. The motion before us relates to taking note of the President's statement on the question of his ruling on privilege and that is the issue which should be addressed, rather than the Byzantine ways of the Committee in coming to whatever conclusions it came to, if indeed it came to any. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —I uphold the point of order raised by Senator Puplick. I must admit that I was becoming disturbed that matters which took place within the Committee and which have not been reported to this Senate were starting to be canvassed. In fact, we are being told about who voted for one side or the other and what was said within the Committee. I think it would be best if we were to get back to the actual question before the Chair, namely, the statement which was brought down by the President. Senator JENKINS —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to make only one point. I was trying to throw some light on what I regard as a debate which has become very confused both inside this chamber and outside so far as the general public is concerned. What has not been properly emphasised-and this is where I think a lot of the confusion is coming from-is the fact that video material which has the R-rated category and which therefore can contain both violence and sexual material is now on the same level as the current X-rated material. Senator Walters —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. The honourable senator is doing it again. The motion before the Chair has nothing to do with R-rated videos at all. The Senate is concerned purely with a matter of privilege, of whether the Chairman of the Committee put out a false Press release. The motion has nothing to do with the concept in the community of R-rated videos. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, I was listening very carefully. Senator Jenkins indicated that she had only one more matter to raise. I was hoping that I would find out how she would tie in her remarks with the motion before the Chair. I will have to wait to see how she develops her speech. Senator JENKINS —In fact, a letter was published in the Press today in which X-rated material, which is non-violent, was confused with films or movies such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This whole debate has got totally out of control. Senator Puplick —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. You have given a very specific ruling. You have ruled that speeches on this subject should relate to the statement made by the President on the question of privilege which was raised by Senator Walters. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that unless Senator Jenkins is required to confine her remarks to that subject, the debate will be about what are or are not perceived to be the recommendations of the Committee, which is not the matter before the chamber at the moment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —For the second time, I uphold Senator Puplick's point of order. I would ask Senator Jenkins to relate her remarks to the motion before the Chair. Senator JENKINS —In conclusion, Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to make the Senate aware, with regard to the matter of privilege as far as the Chairman of the Committee is concerned, that matters are not aided at all by having a confused debate within the Senate chamber as that would only confuse the public to an even greater extent. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(4.15) —Mr Acting Deputy President, it is with considerable personal relief that I say that I agree that your rulings on the points of order are absolutely correct. I must say in defence of Senator Jenkins that it has been very difficult for her in that the mover of the motion that we are debating did in fact canvass those very issues quite widely. But, of course, that does not excuse anyone else for doing it. I said that it was with considerable relief that I agreed with you because I would be horrified to think that we are going to have Debbie Does Dallas mark 2 in here this afternoon. We have already discussed such matters once. I point out to honourable senators who may be following me in this debate that it is, of course, in itself a breach of privilege to canvass here or anywhere else the proceedings of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material and how people voted. Both honourable senators who have spoken so far have talked about motions being carried by a vote of one, and that being a slim majority. I think we are getting into Indian country in this respect. These sorts of things are very subjective. I know that on a number of occasions matters were carried by my vote and I am not sure that anyone would agree that that is a slim majority. I think we are getting into Indian territory in canvassing those issues again. I simply refer the Senate to the penultimate paragraph of the President's statement, with which I concur completely. The alleged breach of privilege is a matter affecting a member of the House of Representatives. The place to take that up and deal with it, as someone will, is in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.18) —The matter raised by Senator Walters, the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, for the President's consideration, prior to the matter being dealt with or not being dealt with by the Senate or the Standing Committee on Privileges is, indeed, as the President stated, capable of being considered a very serious matter. On page 2 of his statement, the President said: Having regard to criterion (a), I think that the matter raised- that is to say, the matter raised by Senator Walters- is capable of being treated by the Senate as a serious matter. It is very serious indeed. I and a number of others have spent four years sifting through, evaluating and considering evidence. It was a surprise to me to read the day after the Committee had reported to the Senate and to the House of Representatives reports in the Press which indicated that the Committee had arrived at certain conclusions which in fact it had not arrived at. I think it is important and quite proper for that question to be aired in the Senate as part of a consideration of the President's statement. The President has made a statement to the effect that the matter raised by Senator Walters is capable of being considered and treated by the Senate as a serious matter. It is a serious matter for a chairman of a joint committee or, indeed, a chairman of a Senate committee to issue on the letterhead of that committee a Press statement which is factually incorrect and which does not do justice to the report itself. I specifically refer to page 2 of the Press statement by the Chairman of the Committee, where he said: The Committee, on balance, found that claims of harm from viewing sexually explicit material were not substantiated and therefore did not warrant the prohibition of such material. That is a false and completely erroneous statement. Quite the contrary, the majority of the Committee in condemning the minority's proposal for an NVE classification of the sexually explicit material said-and I quote from page 302 of the report: The proposal runs counter to the overwhelming burden of evidence submitted to the Committee concerning the harmful effects of this material and is inconsistent with the findings of the Committee thereon. Yet the Chairman of the Committee suggested otherwise in a statement on the letterhead of the Committee on Video Material. That is a very serious matter. We come to the next question: Can we in this Senate do anything about it? The Chairman happens to be a member of the House of Representatives. I can understand the President being concerned about the need to uphold the constitutional integrity of the Parliament-the House of Representatives and the Senate, and, if one likes, the Governor-General, because that all forms the Parliament. I hope that the President and Madam Speaker will uphold the integrity of both Houses of Parliament in another debate which is likely to take place later this week about the amalgamation of certain departments into one department. But we can go into that matter at a later stage. What redress have members of the Committee if the Chairman of the Committee so distorts the report of the majority as to make the public believe that certain judgments have been made, when those judgments have not been made and the opposite judgment has been made? Why do we spend the time, over four years in my case, hearing, sifting and considering evidence and writing material when in the end the Chairman submits a report, calls a Press conference whilst the matter is being debated in the chamber and issues a false Press statement? What redress have we? Senator Puplick —Not to participate in joint committees. Senator HARRADINE —That would relieve my burden of work immensely. The other matter is the protection of our Committee staff because it was our own staff-- Senator Collins —Protection of staff? Senator HARRADINE —That is another aspect. Our own staff was doing the backup for our Committee. The staff has been working on this matter for a long time. It should be recalled that most of the evidence that was given to us in the departmental sense-and I think in the other sense, too-was given to the Senate Select Committee on Video Material which preceded the Joint Committee. The Chairman of the Joint Committee was a Johnny-come-lately in that respect who had declared before he got the chairmanship that his prejudice was against all forms of censorship. Senator Collins —I take a point of order. We have all been fairly tolerant with Senator Harradine. He is right off the point of this statement. Senator HARRADINE —I agree with that statement entirely. I appeal to the good sense of the media-- Senator Puplick —What? Senator HARRADINE —A forlorn hope perhaps but I believe the public is entitled to know the facts and the facts are not in the Chairman's statement. All jokes aside, this is a serious matter. Senator Walters was quite right, as Deputy Chairman, in raising the matter with the President. I agree with what the President said. If we say that we can somehow deal with a member of the House of Representatives; somehow it can deal with a member of this chamber. As the President indicates, that would raise constitutional problems about the integrity of the two Houses of the Parliament. I do hope, however, that in due course people in responsible positions will read and study the report and not simply go by what was contained in the Chairman's Press statement. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.26) —I wish to speak only very briefly because I do not want to waste any more of the time of this chamber, when we have a great deal of important matters to discuss, on a matter which does not really, in my view, concern this chamber at all. But I do not want the things that have been said by Senator Walters and Senator Harradine to appear in the record unchallenged. I would like to challenge many of the statements they have made. But I simply want to say that the other members of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material and the staff of the secretariat do not require their defence on this matter. I simply say that if this is a matter of privilege-which I would certainly contest-it is a matter for the other place. I am quite sure that Senator Walters, at least, has colleagues over there who could raise this matter but, of course, that would not have given Senator Harradine the opportunity to speak. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.25) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE —by leave-I apologise for my oversight at the end of Question Time. I walked out with a file containing answers to some questions posed the other day. On 10 May, Senator Lewis, Senator Stone and Senator Hill asked questions without notice about the legality, propriety and commercial soundness of the acquisition of shares in Bell Group Ltd by the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission from Mr Holmes a Court and an underwriting agreement entered into by SGIC with Mr Holmes a Court in relation to Bell Group Ltd convertible bonds. I indicated that I would endeavour to get more information for the Senate on the matters raised. I am advised that the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) is still conducting inquiries into the SGIC purchase and underwriting agreement in addition to inquiries in relation to a similar purchase in Bell Group Ltd by Bond Corporation Ltd from Mr Holmes a Court. The NCSC has made enquiries of the SGIC in relation to its purchase and agreement and is currently analysing information it has received from that body. While the NCSC is still pursuing its inquiries it would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on the particular matters which have been raised. Whether any enforcement action should be taken under section 11 of the Western Australian Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Code and whether there are sufficient grounds for the making of a declaration of unacceptable conduct or unacceptable acquisition under section 60 of that code are matters for the NCSC to decide. While the Commonwealth has an obvious interest in ensuring national securities markets operate efficiently and fairly, it cannot have a direct involvement in these matters because of the structure of the current cooperative companies and securities scheme. The NCSC is not accountable to the Commonwealth. It reports to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. While the Federal Attorney-General is a member of the Council, neither he nor any other State or Territory Minister has the capacity to direct the policies of the NCSC or to direct it how to carry out its functions in these matters. I understand that the NCSC has been asked to keep the Attorney-General's Department informed of any developments in this matter. I confirmed that this morning. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.29) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.30) —The Senate now has before it the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests, the so-called Helsham inquiry. It is a massive document of some 600 pages, and, as the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) said in his statement earlier today, it is available only in limited quantities and so it has not been possible for all honourable senators who are interested in this report to have the opportunity to peruse and study it. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill was granted royal assent on 30 April 1987 and came into operation on 8 May 1987. The Commission of Inquiry had 12 months in which to undertake a very difficult and complex task, namely, to report on certain matters related to the values and status of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas of South West Tasmania. The commissioners appointed to undertake this task were the Honourable Michael Helsham, former Chief Judge in Equity of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Mr Peter Hitchcock, manager of the Policy and Planning Division of the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales, and Mr Robert Wallace, Reader in Economics at the Flinders University of South Australia. The object of the Act is stated in section 4 in the following terms: The object of this Act is to provide for measures that will enable effect to be given, in relation to the Lemonthyme area and Southern forests area, to Australia's obligations under the Convention- that is, the World Heritage Convention- in particular, the obligations to: (a) identify and delineate the natural heritage and cultural heritage; and (b) take appropriate measures to protect and conserve that heritage. The Commission of Inquiry was in fact asked to report, in essence, on the relationship between the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas of Tasmania and their impact upon the already World Heritage listed area of South West Tasmania. The real purpose of the legislation, however, was to give the Commonwealth Government the opportunity to extend protection as it sees it for World Heritage areas into areas adjacent to or relating to an area already proclaimed and placed on the World Heritage List, and to extend Commonwealth control in an area which otherwise would not have come under Commonwealth control as a result of World Heritage listing a proposed listing. In his second reading speech, the Minister at the time, Mr Cohen, indicated quite clearly that the Helsham inquiry was designed to bring some finality to this matter. The Minister said: The issues are complex, but there is a need to settle the debate once and for all. The challenge that the Government now faces is whether, having been given the report of the Commission of Inquiry, it is prepared to settle this debate once and for all, in line with the recommendations which have been made to it by the Commission of Inquiry, or was the Government's purpose all along to get a commission of inquiry to give it a series of recommendations which would allow it to extend its influence in relation to the preservation of South West Tasmania in accordance with its own political agenda? That is the matter that now squarely faces the chamber in looking at this report. We know that there are time constraints that the Government must now observe. The explanatory memorandum produced in relation to the legislation indicates quite clearly that several clauses of the Bill provided for certain interim protection to be given to the areas nominated but that that interim protection regime would expire after a set period of time, namely, 42 days after the end of the 12-month inquiry period-if in fact not earlier. The Helsham Commission was initially required to undertake an interim assessment of certain specified areas of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and to report on them as a matter of urgency. The Commission produced its interim report, dated 20 November 1987, in which it examined a number of particular areas and it pronounced four of them, constituting an area of 226 hectares out of a total area under review by the Commission of 283,300 hectares, as being areas which definitely did not qualify for protection under the regime which the Government had established. At page 4 of the interim report of the Commission, the Commission is at very considerable pains to draw precise distinctions about what does and does not qualify for protection or what does or does not obtain the status of being something which is in need of special action on the part of the Commonwealth Government. Throughout, the Commission of Inquiry has been bound by the words of the legislation-the Government's legislation, to which those members on this side of the chamber objected in the first place. Nevertheless, the Commission has played this game by the rules given to it by the Government. I put it to the Senate that it is now incumbent on the Government, having established the rules of the game, having appointed the umpire, having financed the inquiry and having received the report, to act on the basis of the report and the recommendations it has been given. Throughout the whole of this inquiry procedure the Federal Government was backwards and forwards to the courts. On the first occasion the matter went before the Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Mason, who in September 1987 issued certain injunctions to provide interim protection for part of the area. The Chief Justice in his reasons for judgment in the case Richardson v. the Forestry Commission and Another made it quite clear that scientific evidence had been put to him, as indeed it would later be put to the Commission of Inquiry, and on that basis he said-and I quote from page 27 of his judgment: It is enough for me to say that on the evidence I conclude that there is a real, as distinct from a bare, possibility that the last mentioned areas form part of, or contribute to the integrity or values of, a world heritage area and that it is equally possible that the planned activities may adversely affect the integrity or values of a world heritage area. His Honour was acting on the basis of scientific evidence which persuaded him to grant certain interim injunctions. Following the Chief Justice's judgment, on 3 September 1987 the Minister, Senator Richardson, issued a Press release, in which he said: The open and impartial inquiry underway should be seen by all parties as a mechanism leading to properly informed Government decisions at both State and Commonwealth level. In other words, the Minister indicated very clearly that this was an open inquiry, that it was under way, and that it should be seen by all parties, presumably including himself, as a mechanism leading to properly informed government decisions at both State and Commonwealth level. So the Minister repeated the underlying rationale for this inquiry: it would produce the evidence upon which the Government could make an informed and rational decision. Nevertheless, the original legislation was again challenged in the Full High Court. It produced a judgment-dated 10 March 1988-in which the majority held that the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act was valid-despite the comments, to which I have referred on a previous occasion, by His Honour Mr Justice Deane, who indicated the extent to which the Commonwealth was quite clearly engaged in an exercise in which it was seeking to minimise the impact of its own actions on the lives of the people in South West Tasmania. Indeed, His Honour Mr Justice Deane said: . . . it seemed that the Commonwealth had not ascertained what the practical impact of the imposition of the restrictive regime would be on the lives and livelihood of those who own or use land within the protected areas for other than logging purposes. Again, that will become central to the indications given by the Commission, because the Commission has in fact looked at those matters, and its conclusions are based very much on ascertaining what are the practical impacts on the lives of people in the area and recommending accordingly. As I have said, I believe that the Commission of Inquiry was supplied with a great deal of very valuable and important information, and I shall draw attention to a couple of the submissions. In a submission entitled `Determining the role and management of environmentally significant forests', Dr Florence of the Department of Forestry at the Australian National University urged on the Commission a particular course of action. At page 28 of his submission he states: We urge the commission of inquiry to recognise the enormous potential of forestry in Tasmania and to emphasise to the Commonwealth and State Governments that this potential can be realised in a socially acceptable way through appropriate resource planning. We believe it would be a very great pity indeed for the Commonwealth Government to jeopardise that potential by responding to strong environmental pressures of an immediate nature. The inquiry can do a great service to Tasmania and Australia through recommendations to government, which, while avoiding pre-emptory land use decisions, would seek to establish the planning structure needed to create a vigorous and stable industry for the future. I put it to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that in fact that is precisely the obligation that the Commission has discharged in the 600-page report now before us. It is not that the Commission was short of submissions from the other side of the debate, as it were. A final submission of about 200 pages made in November 1987 by the Combined Environment Group clearly urges on the Commission that it should take the whole of the area of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and grant it some status akin to World Heritage listing and prevent virtually anything being done in the area. In February 1988, the Combined Environment Group produced a document of about 400 pages entitled `The impact of resource withdrawal-revised final submission'. That submission, made to the Helsham Commission, detailed a considerable amount of information. It concluded that it had no hesitation in advocating to the Commission: That no detriment to the forest industry would ensue from the nomination and listing of western Tasmania stage 2 as world heritage. Other policy positions were available from the Institute of Foresters of Australia, and the Institute's national forest policy was put before the Commission. Also made available to the Commission was the Australian Conservation Foundation's report and the submission of the Tasmanian timber industry, as well as a multitude of other material. Nevertheless, it appeared during the Commission's inquiry that it would not come up with the recommendations that some of the Combined Environment Group people thought it ought to. As a result, a couple of weeks ago, as the Commission's inquiry drew towards a conclusion, a campaign was undertaken in fact to poison the water and imply in advance that the Commission's report should be rejected. An article in the Australian, headed `Conservation groups to change tack in Tas forest fight', states: Conservation groups in Tasmania are gearing up for a renewed campaign to save forests from logging because they seem certain they have lost the fight in the Hawke Government's Helsham inquiry. The Sydney Morning Herald of 7 May 1988 contained an article headed `Why wilderness lovers are set for a new battle'. We have seen the continued attack on the Helsham inquiry prior to the presentation of its report by people who did not think that they would get out of it the result that they wanted. The Australian Conservation Foundation's document entitled `Helsham inquiry Tasmanian forests' begins by attacking the Helsham inquiry, as follows: The Helsham inquiry failed to appreciate the importance of the integrity of an area to its World Heritage values. The document states later: The Helsham inquiry approached its task inappropriately on many accounts. Its findings may well not provide the Government with any clear lead. They do provide the Government with a clear lead. What is objected to is that the clear lead is in the wrong direction as far as some of these groups are concerned. The Australian Conservation Foundation newsletter, for instance, tries to draw on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) General Assembly in Costa Rica for support. If, in fact, it looked at the Costa Rica documents it would see that at its meeting on 1 to 10 February 1988 the IUCN in Costa Rica adopted a Tropical Forestry Action Plan in which it said in part: Recognising that, after adequate provision has been made for the establishment of protected areas, other areas of tropical forest, specially selected for the purpose, may justifiably be allocated for the sustainable production of timber and other high value products. In other words, that is attempting to draw a veil around the whole matter and assert that, from even international levels, protection is the only way to manage forestry resources. The attack on the Helsham inquiry will proceed largely on the basis that the scientist on the Commission was in the minority and that the judge who headed the Commission and the economist who assisted him should be disregarded. It is interesting to note that that was never said by the proponents of environmental control when His Honour Mr Justice Fox produced his report on Ranger, when His Honour Mr Justice Hope produced his report on the national estate or when the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania, not headed by scientists or environmentalists, reported in 1982 why? It is because the recommendations of those inquiries were in fact in line with the preconceived agenda of some proponents. As a result, what we now have is this attack launched on the integrity, in a scientific sense, of the whole Helsham process and inquiry. Turning to the Helsham report itself, I wish to indicate the way in which the Commission went about producing the report and summarising it. In its introductory comments, the Commission indicates that in large part it had been hoped that a memorandum of understanding entered into between the Commonwealth and Tasmania would have rendered a great deal of the inquiry unnecessary. The report says that this hope did not come to pass, I would say simply because the Commonwealth dishonoured the memorandum of understanding that it had with the Tasmanian Government, in exactly the same was as the Commonwealth dishonoured the 1984 Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) agreement about the way in which it would go about consulting the States on World Heritage matters. It is true, as the report indicates, that the Commission is not unanimous in its findings. That is perhaps one of the causes that have allowed people to attack the report although, as I shall seek to point out, I do not believe that that is a valid comment because not all of the recommendations are constituted of the same majority. In fact, the majority varies in relation to a number of recommendations put before us. The Commission clearly drew attention to two difficulties. The first, to be found on page 21 of the report, goes to the question that had originally been raised by His Honour Mr Justice Wilson in Richardson v. the Forestry Commission and Another when he said that the difficulty faced by the court and subsequently faced by the Commission was that some of the terminology, particularly the terminology `contribute to the integrity or values of a world heritage area', is not something that appears as a meaningful concept in any of the scientific documents or any of the conventions. Secondly, at page 23, the report draws attention to the duty of the Commission to determine whether there are any `qualifying areas', as defined by the Act, in need of special protection and the difficulty faced in that regard because of the lack of clarity in both the Act and the World Heritage convention itself. I refer to the conclusions on page 421 of the third volume, as follows: S. 8 (1) (a) requires the Commission to inquire into and report whether there are any qualifying areas in (or partly in) the inquiry area. It reports that there are five such areas. The areas are located in the Forth Valley, at Cathedral Mountain within the Lemonthyme area, the north-east ridge of Mount Anne, in Mount Bobs-The Boomerang area, and at Exit Cave. They are all located in the Southern Forests. The report goes on to indicate that these areas will be dealt with in other chapters of the inquiry and in certain maps. I very much regret that the report says that they are delineated in maps 15, 17 and 18 because, in fact, they are delineated in maps 16, 17, 18 and 19. Part of the difficulty is that there are some inaccuracies in the text of the report, which makes it somewhat more difficult to follow the recommendations. I turn now to the areas that have been specifically designated, and the first is the Forth Valley and Cradle Mountain area which is dealt with on page 177 of the second volume. It is there under the heading `Outstanding natural beauty' that the Commission has determined that two areas qualify for special protection because they are of outstanding natural beauty. At pages 181 and 182 the report indicates how the Commission assessed the Forth Valley and Cathedral Mountain area. If one looks at the second area which is regarded as a qualifying area, one can see that it relates to the Mount Bobs-The Boomerang area, which is assessed for protection because of its `special nature'. The special nature in that regard relates to the Commission's description on page 269, as follows: The Commission has formed the view that the vegetation or botanical qualities of the Mt Bobs-The Boomerang area and the locality of the North-east Ridge of Mt Anne are of outstanding universal value from the scientific point of view. There the emphasis is not on the natural beauty aspect but on the vegetation and botanical quality aspects. If one looks at the final area proposed, that is, Exit Cave, one finds that the Commission also had to draw its attention to what are called karst areas which relate to the cave system that has been formed. Karst is described as implying a landscape in which the dissolving of soluble rock leads to the development of underground drainage and land forms. Exit Cave is mentioned on page 213 in the second part of volume 1, in these terms: The sum total of all the material is to leave the majority of Commissioners with the conviction that Exit Cave alone is a site, formation or area worthy of consideration as world heritage. I think that area comprises about 19 kilometres of underground cave system. It is interesting that on this occasion the majority is made up of two different commissioners from those who constituted the majority on the first four recommendations. So again there is some difficulty in coming to a clear picture of the majority view of the Committee, because it shifts. However, I draw attention to the fact that in relation to the earlier area-the Mount Bobs-The Boomerang and the Mount Anne area-the Commission accords recognition to the fact that the Forestry Commission of Tasmania is planning extensive reservation in that area and will give absolute protection to significant areas of alpine vegetation, rainforest, including King Billy Pine, and karst. In other words, in all of the Commission's undertakings, scientific evidence has been adduced and evaluated and the Commission has made a series of recommendations that there are within the whole of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests five areas worthy of particular protection, and five areas only. The question now is: What will the Government do in response, and why? I put it to the Senate that the Government is now on the horns of a dilemma which it has created. The Government established this commission of inquiry for a particular purpose; it gave it its guidelines and rules, supplied the resources, and selected the three commissioners. At the end of the day the commissioners have made a series of recommendations that the Government did not want to hear. The question will now be: What is the integrity of the Government in relation to the recommendations put before it? We know that at the moment the Government is anxious to establish some sort of new relationship with the forest industries. We also know that apart from the fact that certainly in the electorate of Eden-Monaro and elsewhere the Government is somewhat dependent upon the forest industries for campaign donations, as indeed Mr Young and Mr Loosley could testify, nevertheless, the Government is now divided in Caucus, given that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Snow, has indicated the extent to which he thinks that Senator Richardson is going overboard on this matter, and that the ALP is finding difficulty with, on the one hand, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, supported by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, and the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, who are seeking a more balanced approach to forestry management questions, and, on the other hand, Senator Richardson, who is attempting to maintain his born-again status through thick and thin. Finally buying into this argument is the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, who on 21 April 1988 announced what he called a `forests accord'. Senator Sanders —I rise on a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I think that you were about to subdue the conversation which was going on around Senator Puplick. I simply could not hear Senator Puplick because of the debate that was going on behind him. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —There is no point of order. I point out that Senator Puplick has only a few moments left to him. Senator PUPLICK —I am aware of that, Madam Acting Deputy President, and I thank Senator Sanders for assisting in the matter. On 21 April Senator Cook announced a new so-called forests accord. We have had everything except a forest summit, I suppose. We now have a forests accord in which Senator Cook has attempted to retrieve some ground for the Government by announcing this new accord which will involve the `streamlining of the Government's procedures for determining land access questions'. Senator Cook goes on at great pains to indicate how forest resources can be exploited in a sensible, controlled, balanced and integrated fashion. The Helsham inquiry gives the Government an opportunity to do that. The Helsham inquiry, having taken a mountain of evidence and having seen more trees sacrificed in the process of providing paper for submissions to an inquiry about saving trees than just about any other inquiry, has made some clear recommendations to the Government. The Government is now obliged, under the terms of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act, to respond within a particular time frame. By the time the Government gets around to this, the Parliament will have risen and therefore the Government will not have to face in the Parliament the consequences of its decision one way or the other. I suppose that is part of the object of the exercise. Senator Aulich, who smiles broadly and understands the way that these things are done, is an old practitioner in doing things in this fashion. It will be interesting to see whether the Tasmanian Labor senators are prepared to indicate any degree of support for the Tasmanian position and for the recommendations of the Helsham inquiry. In conclusion, I point out that this inquiry was established by the Government for a particular purpose. All those who wished to make submissions were able to participate. It had the benefit of expert advice; it had the benefit of its own counsel, its own advisers, and its own integrity with a former Supreme Court judge as its Chairman in a position to make significant judgments as to competing claims and competing values. It has now reported. It has essentially reported in favour of the position put by the Tasmanian Government, the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and people seeking a balanced exploitation of the forest resources of South West Tasmania. It is now up to the Government to act in accordance with those recommendations. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.00) —For the last half hour we have been hearing the statements of Senator Puplick, who apparently has been shuffled in the hierarchy of the Opposition. He is no longer the shadow Minister for the environment. Apparently, he has now taken over the portfolios of industry, primary industry, mining, forests and, perhaps, finance. Certainly he is not the man who was advertised to lead the green revolution of the Opposition. Certainly he is not the man who would espouse the environmental rhetoric which would thus indicate that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are actually aware of the environment. Apparently, he has no awareness of environmental issues-he speaks only of economics and he does not even do that very well. The Helsham Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests is a temporary victory for the shortsighted Tasmanian troglodytes and their multinational masters. The people and the forests will suffer. We have to go back and see why the Helsham inquiry was instituted in the first place. Several years ago the then Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, came up with recommendations on some 21 areas of significance in Tasmania which were endangered by logging. He included such areas as Jackys Marsh, the Douglas-Apsley area, the Lemonthyme and the Southern Forests. Unfortunately, we have lost all those other areas as matters of concern and the Helsham inquiry was limited to only the Lemonthyme and the Southern Forests. That is sad because, of course, there are many other areas deserving of preservation. At any rate, the Helsham inquiry was instituted to discuss the relative merits of the World Heritage areas and look into the forestry matters. Well it did. Of course, the response by the logging industry was quite predictable. I quote from yesterday's Mercury newspaper dated Monday 16 May 1988. The headline on the front page reads: `The Helsham decision: Logging joy in forest findings'. The article states: The Helsham Inquiry has confirmed the conservation movement's fears and delivered a stunning victory to the State Government and the forest industries. This is from the Hobart Mercury which is owned by the same outfit which owns Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd (ANM) which, of course, is one of the largest end users of the forest products of Tasmania. We can take it that not only is the Mercury happy about this but the forestry industry is also. The article continues: The long-awaited report of the inquiry-strongly opposed originally by the State Government-agrees that much of the disputed Lemonthyme and southern forests are not of World Heritage value. It recommends that only a handful of the 284,000 hectares is worthy of World Heritage Listing that would protect it from logging. It points out an interesting matter which I will go into in greater detail later. It says: The Federal Government has the added problem of a dissenting report from the third member of the inquiry, Mr Peter Hitchcock, a forester and policy manager for the New South Wales National Parks Service. He has recommended that the entire forests be listed on the World Heritage Register. He also has recommended World Heritage listing for one other area on the boundary of the southern forests protected area. I will come back to that because I think it is important. Frankly, although Senator Puplick puts such store by the Helsham inquiry and says that the Government must now listen to its findings, the fact is that the Helsham inquiry is fatally flawed; it flawed itself. I do not know why Judge Helsham, who is a man of some experience, has allowed himself to be trapped by the selection of so-called experts. I do not know whether he or someone else selected these people. Who did he get? Who evaluated this mountain of evidence? Were they academics? Were they people who had shown some former ability to weigh the evidence and see both sides? No, these sorts of people were not chosen. I do not know whether he chose them but the people who were chosen were people such as John Quick. John Quick was engaged to review everyone else's evidence on tall eucalyptus with respect to World Heritage value. Up until two years previously he had been the Chief Commissioner of the Forestry Commission of Tasmania. The Forestry Commission of Tasmania has as its charter the support of the industry and over the years it has made no bones about this. It is there to back the industry; to support the industry and to make sure that the industry goes ahead. It is not the Department of the Environment. It is the State governmental arm of the forestry industry. Here we have the former Commissioner being commissioned by the Helsham inquiry to look at the evidence. How could he possibly come up with a balanced view when his overall drive in the preceding years had always been forestry and cutting down the trees? He is on public record, at a luncheon for FIAT which is a Tasmanian organisation for the forestry industry, as saying in November 1985: We cannot afford to lock up a single hectare of forest. This was one of the men brought in to evaluate the evidence. In a dispassionate way? Of course not; he was biased from the beginning. There was an outfit called ACIL Australia Pty Ltd, which is a consultancy firm which reviewed everyone else's evidence on the logging industry. For this purpose, it engaged Evan Shield, former Deputy Logging Manager of Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd until 1981. He was surely not a disinterested party. Another man who was employed was named David Trebeck, a former rural affairs adviser to the Liberal Party of Australia and an officer of the National Farmers Federation, which is spending hundreds and thousands of dollars opposing World Heritage listings in Australia. This man was hired to evaluate the evidence. How does one expect an unbiased judgment from such a man? The above three men were never put forward for public cross-examination and they were essentially allowed to have the last word behind the scenes. There was a secret meeting of the Helsham inquiry people and the Forestry Commission Counsel in early December. This secret meeting was not revealed until the environmental movement found out about it and revealed it to the Press. It was a `Clayton's' inquiry and it did not use the power of subpoena. It was fatally flawed. Let us look at the majority opinion first. Who are the people who gave the majority opinions? Michael Helsham, a judge and a retired air vice-marshal; Robert Wallace, a reader in economics at Flinders University. Economics is one of the dodgiest sciences I know of. If economics worked we would have full prosperity on earth today. Senator Aulich —Science? Senator SANDERS —Senator Aulich questions whether it is a science. Economists are not well versed-- Senator Aulich —It is like astrology. You throw up the bones and see how they land. Senator SANDERS —It is like astrology in terms of interpreting bones and perhaps chicken entrails. But economists have no knowledge of the real world. They deal with this model of the earth which has infinite resources and can be manipulated within terms of supply and demand. The only person who had any knowledge of the real world-and he had great knowledge of the real world in forestry matters-was Peter Hitchcock, who was a forester and is the manager of policy and planning for the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. He was the dissenting voice. He was the person who actually knew what was going on and could see it. On page 423 of the report he gives his minority opinion in which he says: Regrettably there are major differences between the majority view and the minority view in the reporting of qualifying areas. Those differences may be explicable in part at least by differences in: the interpretation of the Act, in particular the interpretation of the definition of `qualifying areas'; the interpretation of the Convention; the weighting placed on the criteria and the conditions of integrity and the Nomination Form; and the approach adopted in translating heritage values into qualifying areas. He goes on at some length. I will read a bit of it: In essence the main points of my interpretation, which I believe to be legitimate, logical and appropriate to heritage values, are that: lands which constitute a world heritage area for the purposes of the Act may be partly or even substantially within the existing world heritage area; if a tract of land which constitutes a part of the cultural or natural heritage (a world heritage area) is partly located in the existing world heritage area, then that part which intrudes into the inquiry area remains a part of the cultural or natural heritage; i.e. a part of a world heritage area; accordingly, in reporting such areas I report them as qualifying areas which are part of a world heritage area rather than report them as contributing areas. They may also be contributing areas, depending upon the interpretation of the Act; Under his standards, he feels that almost all the area under the inquiry should be on the World Heritage List, which is in conflict with the majority report. The majority report rejects the World Heritage values of archaeological sites and wilderness. It rejects wilderness as a relevant criterion. It rejects World Heritage values of tall eucalypts. It rejects the Gondwanic and alpine vegetation and all wildlife. Wildlife was not considered at all. That goes for invertebrates right up to wedge-tailed eagles. How can a report which rejects such important things have any credence? Mr Hitchcock said: One of the most important elements of the natural heritage is the tall eucalypt forest ecosystem. The qualifying areas I have identified contain exceptional examples of the ecosystem which I consider to be of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation and natural beauty. They represent an exceptional opportunity to preserve, for the benefit of mankind outstanding examples of a unique forest ecosystem where natural processes of international interest still operate. There are few if any other opportunities remaining in Australia for the conservation of comparable examples of tall eucalypt forest in pristine natural condition particularly in a wilderness setting where modern technological man has not yet had a significant impact on the ecosystem and its natural processes. Of course he is absolutely right. Let us go into this a little further. He was talking, basically, as a forester, a person who is well versed in the science of ecology and knows about the value in terms of science. What about the jobs? Over and over again the Gray Government and its apologists tell us that jobs are at stake here. Let us hear what the people who are supposedly concerned about their jobs-and they are-have to say. If this inquiry did anything it finally allowed the forest workers themselves to have a platform from which to speak out. Senator Aulich —Hear, hear! That's right. Senator SANDERS —As Senator Aulich says, `Hear, hear!'. For the first time those people were able to speak out for themselves. What did they say? I refer to a collection of submissions to the Helsham inquiry by small sawmillers. Perhaps they are too small. They are not multinationals; the Liberal and National parties would not be interested in them. They are just small businessmen. The authors of the submissions are five men-Darryl Brown, who has 40 years experience in the sawmill industry; Brian Burden, who has 33 years experience; Max Helm, who has 44 years experience; Trevor Booth, who has 38 years experience; and Cliff Hall, who has 28 years experience-with a total of 183 years of experience in the forest industry. Those experts were not listened to. They are not articulate people. They do not have time; they are out making a living. But they took the time to put submissions together. Darryl Brown said: My name is Darryl Brown and my family has been in the sawmilling game for one and a quarter centuries. I started in the sawmilling industry at the age of 13, four decades ago. I've decided to give evidence before the inquiry because the forests from which I earn my living are being destroyed before my eyes and yet no one is doing anything about it. The Russell Valley with its dead or dying trees and the massive amounts of waste on the ground is testimony to the ruthless and incompetent way it was raped mainly for woodchip. The other thing is, the way this inquiry is being run, it looks to me like a bit of a lame duck. In my observation, when arguments are conducted on written piles of paper, behind closed doors the man with the most money and biggest cigar always wins because a smart lawyer can make anything look good on paper. The problems in the industry are out in the bush, the evidence is obvious and irrefutable, a blind man could see it if he went out and checked. It seems farcical to me that while legal arguments are fought over piles of paper, good timber is rolling down Macquarie Street, 50 yards away, to the chipmill. I can't beat a smart lawyer on paper but out in the bush where the evidence is, I can bring these pulp companies completely undone. If one lawyer says one thing and another lawyer says something completely different-all you have is a big argument, but if you go out into the bush the evidence is irrefutable. He went on to talk about woodchipping sawlogs. He said: Sawlogs are being chipped all the time by pulp companies as well as the woodchip companies. Many of my friends are pulp contractors and I know what goes on. Talking about specialised timbers, he said: From my point of view probably the greatest tragedy of the Russell area is the amount of minor species that has been wasted. Most of the minor species grow underneath the big eucalypts. I don't care how good a faller you are, you can't fall those big eucalypts without smashing most of the minor species to pieces. Once there on the ground, minor species are often run over with the bulldozers while the're getting the eucalypt out and in some cases it's even burned before sawmillers can get it. Darryl Brown has taken a lot of time in putting together a thoughtful paper. I now refer to a letter covering a submission from Maydena. The submission is quite a bit longer so I will read the letter, as it covers the ground. The letter, which was from J. G. Reynolds for and on behalf of the Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd treefellers-those people know what is going on-states: Dear Mr Groom, I represent the A.N.M. Treefellers, who, as a group, are responsible for the felling and manufacture of approx. 300,000m3/Annum of timber off the A.N.M. Concession. This includes 70,000m3/Annum of Veneer and Sawlog, or approx. 20% of total Tasmanian production. We believe that given correct harvesting techniques and pricing structures that our recovery could be boosted by 50% or an extra 30,000m3/Annum of Veneer and Sawlog, using the same amount of resource. I am sure the benefits of this would be immediately obvious to yourself. Our present pricing structure to put it simply, is a device to ensure that we have to massacre virgin forest to enable us to achieve adequate financial returns. That letter was from the tree-fellers-the people who know what is going on. I have been in that ANM concession. Trevor Booth, a sawmiller, took me there and he had tears in his eyes. He cannot get logs. Logs that were six feet in diameter were left behind. I ask Senator Puplick whether he is paying attention. The logs were lying on the ground because of the concession -- Senator Puplick —Why would I pay attention to this sort of rubbish? Senator SANDERS —Senator Puplick says that it is rubbish. How often has he been to that area? Has he ever set foot in that area and spoken to a small sawmiller? He has not done so. He would not do so because he is not interested in the small businessman. He is not interested in anything but the multinationals. He is showing his true colours. The small sawmillers, the bush workers, have felt, for the first time, that they can come out and say something. Unfortunately, they were not listened to. Senator Aulich —They are ignored. Senator SANDERS —They are ignored by Senator Puplick and they are ignored by Robin Gray. I will read another passage from Darryl Brown's submission because I think that he says it all. Perhaps Senator Puplick will listen to this. These are not my words; they are Darryl Brown's words: My final statement is a summing up of the situation as I see it. I apologise if my presentation is less than slick but that's something we're all going to have to live with. This enquiry started off as a way to see if there are any alternatives to logging National Estate forests. That's a worthwhile thing in its own right but this enquiry has become far more than that. This enquiry has become the first and probably the last chance for an independent look at the Tasmanian Timber Industry. These big companies have so much political clout that an objective look at the way they operate has never been allowed. It makes no difference which political party is in power the big boys run the show and that's the problem! Tasmania's timber industry is in a mess, chaos reigns supreme. These multinationals are out of control and neither the Forestry Commission or the weak-kneed politicians have got the guts to do anything about it. This is hardly surprising when you consider most people in the industry are either too scared or too easily bribed to make a noise. The fact that there is massive waste is obvious and proven beyond doubt. A blind man could find the waste because you can't go for a walk in the bush without tripping over it. Unless someone brings these corporate vikings under control the sawmilling industry will go down the drain or more precisely down the chipper. The few industry people who have spoken out and told the truth about the mess have been attacked personally in private and publicly. We all knew there would be a heavy price for breaking ``The Silence''. These cowardly attacks completely miss the point. It is completely irrelevant how much timber we cut, how many forestry commission officers like us or how many times we can afford to take a politician out to tea in one week. Despite having weeks and in some cases months to prepare cross examination none of our accusers asked us one question. Despite being invited out to the bush where we could of settled the argument once and for all they stayed silent. None of our accusers have been game to go out the bush and argue with us over our ability to pick a sawlog when we see one and that's the point they know we're right. Instead they've adopted sleazy character assassination as a tactic. One thing I can guarantee, if this inquiry fails to solve the problems we won't be around for the next one because the politicians, Forestry Commission personnel and companies we have embarrassed will make sure we aren't.! We came to this enquiry with no money and no court experience. We have been up against flash lawyers, slick public servants and some of the biggest multinationals in the state. We came with what, I was always taught was the most powerful weapon in the world, ``The TRUTH'' it may not always be pretty but it is always accurate. It may not of been what people ``WANTED'' to hear but it was what they ``NEEDED'' to hear for things to get better. Only history will show if our sacrifices have been in vain. Everyone knows about the waste and everyone knows about the small sawmillers problems. People can no longer say they don't know. They can only say they don't care. YOURS SINCERELY DARRYL BROWN MOUNTAIN RIVER SAWMILLER Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.21) —The purpose of this debate is to allow honourable senators to speak on the tabling of the report of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. The inquiry has been a very extensive and expensive one. But now it is complete. It is not the duty of the Government to go through the evidence piece by piece but to act on the report that has been brought down. We debated this matter at great length in March 1987. As we found then, the position was quite clear. The debate showed that in every respect. We now have the complete report before us. Of course, it is now up to the Government to ensure that the recommendations are, in fact, implemented. I think that the forest accord produced by Senator Cook is very interesting. We now have the opportunity to determine what he is going to do about it. I note one or two points raised by the previous speaker, Senator Sanders. He said that the one who produces the biggest report expects to get the biggest result. Of course, the biggest report in no way, shape or form came from the forestry industry. However, there was a submission of between 600 and 700 pages from one witness. I am not sure how he would interpret that. The fact that the Government was able to win the debate and have the Commission appointed was one thing in itself. That the Government was in fact able to appoint people to sit on that Commission, with the aid of its friends-for instance, Senator Sanders who has just spoken-is another thing. The Government appointed Mr Helsham, Mr Hitchcock and Mr Wallace. I do not remember any debate at the time of their appointment to the effect that these people were unsuitable, untrustworthy, incompetent or unprofessional. I think the time to have raised such a matter, if anybody had seriously wanted to take that into account, was at the time of the appointments, not now. The fact that we have just had to sit through one of the meanest, most unbalanced, cowardly and despicable character assassinations of those three people I think is one of the matters that this Senate should take into account. These three people have considerable professional capacity. I believe that we should not stand for that sort of nonsense in this place. The Government now must make sure that, having got the report, there is no impediment to its adequate and proper implementation. We are not in a position to send the matter back for further inquiry, further discussion or further misrepresentation just because there are people who may not have got exactly what they wanted. This is the tenth inquiry into Tasmanian forestry in the last 10 years. I have not yet been privileged to see the Helsham report; so the purpose of my speech is to deal with the report's implementation as it is. As I said, it is not the duty of this Parliament now to go through and analyse each piece of evidence. That has been done. Senator Coates —We are all entitled to make our judgment. Senator ARCHER —It has been handled by the expert Commission set up to do exactly that by the Government of which Senator Coates is a member. I do not want to hear any more squealing and screaming from honourable senators opposite to the effect that the inquiry was rigged, that the umpire was crook or that the legislation did not quite produce the result that they might have asked for. The hat was made by honourable senators opposite and they can wear it. In view of the fact that there is only five minutes left in this debate, I will leave it to Senator Walters to make some more comments. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.26) —I thank my colleague, Senator Archer. It was just over 12 months ago that we debated in this chamber the setting up of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. I can remember very clearly Senator Aulich rushing out of the chamber because he was not prepared to speak and because he was terrified that someone was going to ask him a few questions about the matter. He was asked a few minutes ago by way of interjection whether he agreed with the report. He mumbled and did not answer me. I now ask Senator Aulich whether he is in complete agreement and whether he will make sure that his Government sticks by the decision of the Commission it set up. The Government chose the people to sit on that Commission. It has spent taxpayers' money unnecessarily, because we all knew what the result should be. Senator Coates at least is an honest bloke. He has said from the very beginning-- Senator Aulich —Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask Senator Walters to retract the inference that I am in fact not honest. Senator Walters knows very well that I opposed personally the Helsham inquiry and, in fact, personally I do not accept the report. It is a matter for the Government to make a decision on, but I do not mind being on record on this matter. I ask the honourable senator to retract the statement she made about my honesty because my honesty in this matter is not in question. Senator WALTERS —Madam Acting Deputy President, I had no intention of suggesting that; but seeing that Senator Aulich is so sensitive about it, I will withdraw. All I said was that Senator Coates-- Senator Aulich —Madam Acting Deputy President, I ask for an absolute and unconditional withdrawal. Senator WALTERS —I absolutely withdraw. Senator Aulich —I am speaking to the point of order. I ask for a total withdrawal of what Senator Walters was saying. I expect that withdrawal, and nothing less. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Senator Aulich, I was under the impression that Senator Walters had withdrawn. Senator WALTERS —Madam Acting Deputy President, you will find that he will hop up again because he does not want me to speak and I have only a minute and a half to go. I am used to that tactic. It is a dirty tactic that this lot use all the time. I was saying that at least Senator Coates is honest. He agrees with the greenies. He wanted this report. However, he is objecting because the report has come down with a recommendation that is different from what he wanted. He has objected all the time. Nobody is questioning Senator Coates's motives at all. Let us understand that the Government established this inquiry off the top of its head. Honourable senators will remember that it was after the New South Wales State by-election which encompassed areas of Mr Keating's electorate when the Australian Labor Party lost 20 per cent of its vote that Bob Hawke said: `We need some votes from somewhere, fellers. Where will we get them? We will set up an inquiry to get the greenie vote'. That is how it got the greenie vote. The Government extracted from Bob Brown when he was in the Prime Minister's office a promise to abide by the report of the Helsham inquiry. What is Bob Brown doing now? He is bucking. He is not abiding by the promise he made to support the report of the Helsham inquiry. We have had the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and we have had Senator Richardson already say they will not necessarily abide by the report of the Helsham inquiry. Thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money have been used for this inquiry and we now have the likes of Senator Coates, the Prime Minister and Senator Richardson querying whether they will abide by its findings. As I came to Canberra last week I saw, at a quarter to six in the morning, men in a truck going out to collect logs. The truck would have gone home at 9.30 p.m. Those truckies know how to work. It is a pity the Australian Labor Party is so out of touch with its grass roots, because it does not know how hard these people work. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. It being 5.30 p.m., the time for debate on the motion has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. (Quorum formed) Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. We have before us the first report of the Constitutional Commission. Once again this Government has spent thousands of taxpayers' dollars, this time on a commission which has brought down a report advising the Government on how the Constitution should be reformed. A few months ago, in the Government's heyday, when things looked good and the polls were not so bad, members of the Government were sure that they would have in 1988 a totally new Constitution. They set up the Constitutional Commission, and they set up a group of people who were going to educate the public on the need for reform of the Constitution. We have this lovely little green booklet entitled Australia's Constitution-Time to Update, and we see cartoon characters saying the Constitution is all outdated. At the very front of the green booklet it is stated: Few countries can be so dominated by a printed document as is Australia by its Constitution. Few peoples can be so plagued with constitutional problems in their daily lives as are the Australians. I wonder how many people in the gallery today feel that they have been so plagued in their normal everyday lives by our Constitution. We have one gentleman who believes he has, out of the whole of the gallery. If he were in this chamber, I would ask him in what way he has been plagued in his daily life by the Constitution. He would not be able to answer, because the Constitution has served this country so well since Federation. I do apologise, Mr Acting Deputy President; I should not have been encouraging people in the gallery to respond. As I said earlier, the Government has spent a tremendous amount of money on the Constitutional Commission. A publicity group has been used to bring up such documents as have been tabled today. This publicity group was meant to go out and encourage children to write essays on what alterations ought to be made to the Constitution and how such alteration should be done; yet the Government has now brought forward its recommendations without any regard at all to the final report of the Commission. The Commission has not even reported and the Government has picked up the odd recommendation that it wants-it really has nothing to do with the Commission-and is to put forward four proposals to the Australian people. Previously we had a Constitutional Convention supported by all the States. The Convention kept an eye on how the Constitution could be altered, and indeed it was responsible for putting up the alterations that have already taken place. But that was not good enough for this Government. This Government wanted a complete redrafting of the Constitution in the bicentennial year, and it was for that purpose, it told us, that it was prepared to spend so much on the setting up of this Commission. I believe the Government is absolutely derelict in its duty. It should be waiting for the final report of the Commission. I do not know what the members of the Commission-some of them very prominent men-feel about being so completely ignored, but no doubt we will hear from them in the near future. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.38) —Senator Walters has made some comments on volumes 1 and 2 of the first report of the Constitutional Commission. It is not my intention to criticise her criticisms, but I should say a couple of things. She asked who feels any need for a change to the present set-up of the Australian Federation. Certainly there has been a considerable push from people wanting, for example, a uniform company law throughout Australia made at a Federal level. I was at a meeting today concerning animal welfare. There was a discussion on whether there should be uniform laws throughout Australia on animal welfare and cruelty matters. There are also road traffic laws and the difficulty one has to go through to sue for an action that occurs in South Australia if one is resident in Victoria, and so on. So there are considerable bases for saying that there should be, not a throwing out of the old Constitution and the institution of a new one, but certainly some modification of the one presently operating in Australia. The fact that there has to be a change in the Constitution from time to time has been recognised throughout its history. There have been eight constitutional changes, some of them very significant-for example, the change giving the Commonwealth the ability to pay social security-and there is a history of the Australian people, though not often when we compare the propositions that have been passed and those that have not been, realising from time to time that there must be a change in the Constitution. I do not want to go into that matter deeply now. I want to express my gratitude to the people who prepared this first report of the Constitutional Commission. These people are Sir Maurice Byers, formerly a Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth who served under governments of both persuasions; Professor Enid Campbell, a professor of constitutional law at Monash University; Mr Whitlam, a former Prime Minister of this country; the Hon. Sir Rupert Hamer, a former Premier of Victoria; and Professor Leslie Zines, a professor of law at the Australian National University. They are all eminent lawyers who have contributed mightily to this nation. They are all people who should be thanked by Australians as a whole for preparing this document. Thankfully, they will continue to pursue their investigation into constitutional reform. The members of the Constitutional Commission have been supported by people very eminent in their field who, again, have contributed mightily to the preparation of this report. I suggest that the report of the Constitutional Commission should be read by people who will take part in the debate which is about to occur on the four constitutional changes suggested by this Government. It might have been hoped that these four proposed constitutional changes would be considered fairly unexceptional. I do not want to go into that now because, clearly, these proposals have become a matter for political debate. In this short speech I do not want to go into the party political aspects of what is happening, but I do want to go into the question of what we ought to do about the report and what we ought to do about the people who are responsible for it. What we ought to do about the report is to read it so that when the debate takes place at least it will be an informed debate. What we ought to do about the people who have prepared it is to thank them. Let us hope that the coming debate about constitutional changes suggested by this Government is at least generous to the people who have prepared these documents. Let us hope that they are not denigrated, as often happens, by people who want to win the debate. Perhaps this happens unintentionally but, nevertheless, at times those who have done good work are cruelly brought into disrepute. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.43) —Today the Government has presented to the Senate the first report of the Constitutional Commission. An amount of $6m has been poured into the Commission by this Government in an attempt to review the Australian Constitution and what it stands for. On 6 May the Constitutional Commission released the first of its final two reports-the ones that we are discussing here today. Yet only four days later elected representatives of the Australian people sat in the other House so that the Government could introduce four Bills which are designed to enable a referendum to be held in September. The Government decided to rush headlong into yet another ill-conceived attempt to force significant constitutional changes on the Australian people. I say to Senator Cooney that I think it would be fair not to criticise the people who participated in the report. But certainly we should be very critical of a government that introduces legislation into the House of Representatives four days after it has brought down a report. I say that we never had an opportunity to consider the legislation. The Bills were printed and on the block ready to go into the House before we even had a chance to read the $6m report. If the honourable senator does not think that that deserves criticism, I do not think he is being just. I would never accuse Senator Cooney of not being just because he is a very eminent professional barrister. I know that he admires fairness. But Senator Cooney is not being completely honest when he comes in here and tries to hide that fact. On page 13 of the report the Commission recommends increasing the maximum term of the House of Representatives to four years, with a qualified minimum term of three years. It also recommends: Senators chosen in the States shall hold their places for two terms of the House of Representatives except in the event of a double dissolution. Well, it cost $6m to get that piece of advice. This recommendation did not serve the Government's purpose so the Government ignored it. When the umpire brings down a verdict that suits the Government, the Government will accept it. Just a few minutes ago we debated the report of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. The Government did not like the findings of this report on which it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and is prepared to ignore it. I suggest that we could save the taxpayer a lot of money. Let us not go through the charade and sham of bringing in these very well prepared reports and wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money if the Government is not going to pay the slightest bit of notice to them. The first question contained in the Government's referendum legislation asks the people of Australia to approve of an alteration to the Constitution to allow four-year terms for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Effectively, the Government is proposing to seek to introduce permanent double dissolutions. The people of Australia have to realise that this proposal is not going to provide any greater stability. What it probably will do is create greater instability in that a government would be able to go to the people at any time it likes. It could dissolve the Senate and take it to an election without having to go to the trouble of having a double dissolution. The legislation will also ensure that the Australian Democrats will continue their representation in this chamber. I personally quite like some-only some-of the Australian Democrats. But, politically, I do not think they add anything to this House or to this Parliament. Deals and double deals are done. One first has to sell one's soul before one can get anything from the Democrats. I suggest that one of the reasons the Government has the support of the Democrats on some of these questions is that the Democrats would be able to cement themselves into this Parliament with a 7 per cent quota. This Senate would continually have single issue minority groups who are elected with a 7 per cent quota, which in some States amounts to a very small number of electors. I say that that is wrong. It will create-- Senator Powell —You have only 5 per cent in Victoria. Senator Jenkins —There are no Nationals in Western Australia. Senator BOSWELL —The National Party does achieve quite a considerable vote. Of course, in Queensland, it goes up to around 30 per cent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.48) —I would like to say a few words on the first report of the Constitutional Commission. The fact that it is called the first report indicates to the Senate that apparently there are to be other reports. I really cannot understand in my own mind why the Government did not wait until the final report came out before it introduced referenda legislation. All of a sudden, as soon as the first report was brought down, we have referendum questions based on that report. I wonder why the Government would want to spend $6m on a Constitutional Commission to change the Constitution without waiting for the final report in order to make sure that all of the recommendations have been submitted. I wonder, as has been said on a number of occasions, whether it is because the Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, wants to finish off his parliamentary career by making alterations to our Constitution. I wonder whether that is correct. The Constitution, to my way of thinking, has stood us all in good stead since 1901. I do not know why it needs any alteration at all. I just wonder whether the legislation is the first step of a reform to make us a republic. That is the sort of thing that worries me. The first question to be put to a referendum concerns having a four-year Parliament. It seems odd to me to put this question to a referendum, when in all the seven years that I have been here we have never even been able to have a three-year term of Parliament and we have had election after election. It seems hypocritical to put to a referendum the question of having a four-year term of Parliament. Of course, the Government wants to reduce the term of a senator from six years to four years. Perhaps some people outside who think that politicians do not earn their money would think that there is certainly no need for politicians to have an eight-year term, which would be the case if we doubled the four-year term. Many people outside would think that an eight-year term is far too long. There are some very excellent senators in this place, such as Senator Austin Lewis, Senator Grant Tambling and Senator Ronald Boswell, who would do well with an eight-year term, but, nevertheless, to my way of thinking this proposal for a four-year term really does not have anything to recommend it. This is a matter that we must look at further. I think it would introduce a permanent double dissolution situation. The system of rotation of senators' terms would be abandoned. I believe that that system has been very worth while, working with the half Senate election system-provided the Prime Minister of the day will allow a half Senate election. We have not had a half Senate election for a mighty long time. Every time a senator has come up for re-election it has been due to a double dissolution. Nevertheless, the system that we have had would be abandoned. It would remove the restrictions on a Prime Minister calling an early election. As far as I can see, this would certainly not give any greater stability to the whole system. That is the first matter that will be put to a referendum. I noted comments made in the newspaper where even the Attorney-General himself has said that now that the Opposition has taken a stand against the four-year term proposal he doubts very much whether the proposal will get through a referendum. I would like to think that none of the proposals that have been put up will get through a referendum. Senator Colston —What about local government? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —There are plenty of other proposals, but I do not consider that any of them have any real merit. I know that indeed Senator Colston would very much like the second proposal to get through, where the Government wants to give more power to Canberra; it wants to take power away from State governments and tell them how they ought to run their elections. I think the Government ought to get stuck into considering the matter of the value of votes for senators. In looking at Senator Tate sitting over there one remembers that the very small State of Tasmania elects the same number of senators as does New South Wales and Queensland. That does not seem to be fair unless one wants to protect the interests of the States. I believe that that is a good thing that has been written into the Constitution, and I certainly do not believe that we ought to have a situation where the Commonwealth Government is telling the States what to do. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.53) —I rise also to address the $6m report of the Constitutional Commission. At the outset, I must say that from the beginning the coalition parties have pointed out to the Government that this is not the way to go about achieving some sort of consensual arrangement for the alteration of the Constitution. There are certain substantial changes to the Constitution which the coalition parties would support. We had a system of constitutional. conventions which were in fact working on a number of proposals for certain changes, which we believe would have been successful and to the benefit of this nation, but when the present Government came to power it abandoned those constitutional conventions and, ultimately, it established this Constitutional Commission, comprising five people. One does not deny that they are very highly qualified people but, after all, it involves only five people making very substantial recommendations in relation to changes to the Constitution. One only has to have a quick look at the recommendations in the volumes to see the enormous number of changes that they have recommended. One hopes that at some stage in the future the Government does not say to the people of Australia, `Here are these recommendations; they are a good thing because the Commission has recommended them', and believe that that is the way that it will achieve change. The Constitution that we have at present came about as a result of very substantial and extensive debates by people who were elected to constitutional conventions for the purpose of drawing up the Constitution. Thus, the people of the States of Australia felt that they were adequately and properly represented on those bodies and that their views were being put forward. But in what way do the people of Australia believe that they have been adequately represented by the five members of the Constitutional Commission? Clearly they do not believe that they are being adequately represented. On the matter of the Commission being prepared to make recommendations for very substantial changes, I draw attention to one matter specifically, namely, the recommendation that the number of senators for each of the original States should remain at 12-and apparently remain at 12 for all time. I gather that it would be written into the Constitution that the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate be broken. The recommendation is that the number of senators remain at 12. I was one of the people who voted against the proposal to increase State representation from 10 senators to 12 senators. In my view that was one of the most stupid decisions that this Parliament has ever made. It has meant that when we go to a half Senate election we are in the unfortunate situation where the States will break three-three instead of three-two, under the 10 senator system, or some other figure that might be uneven. It is difficult, but I think the next figure would have to be 15 per State, which would be far too many senators. The explanation for remaining at 12 senators is not sensible; it simply states: Twelve each has been entirely adequate for the Senate to perform its role effectively. We recommend that the number of senators for each original State be fixed at that figure. That is an absolute nonsense. Ten senators from each State were sufficient for the Senate to perform its role effectively. I would be surprised if seven senators per State were not sufficient for the Senate to perform its role effectively-or perhaps some other number, but certainly we should not fix it at 12 senators per State. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —For the information of the Senate, I present a submission relating to a review of Standing Orders, draft revised Standing Orders, and associated documents. It is my intention to ask the Procedure Committee to consider these documents as soon as it is able to do so, which will probably not be until the next period of sittings. I am tabling the documents so that all senators will have the opportunity to consider them and to make any comments which may then be placed before the Procedure Committee. The Senate will note that there are two changes to current procedures, relating to the ringing of the bells and the presence of a quorum, which are suggested for adoption before the Senate sits in the new Parliament House. I suggest that action be taken on these two matters before the end of this period of sittings. I want to add that, although I have not read the submission, I would like to congratulate the Clerk, Harry Evans, on his diligence in carrying out what I believe is the first full review of the Standing Orders since 1903. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Childs, I table additional information received by Estimates Committee A. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Gietzelt, I table additional information received by Estimates Committee B. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Crowley, I table additional information received by Estimates Committee C. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Colston, I table additional information received by Estimates Committee D. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Aulich, I table additional information received by Estimates Committee E. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Black, I table additional information received by Estimates Committee F. Assent to the following Bills reported: Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill 1988 Laying Chicken Levy Bill 1988 Laying Chicken Levy Collection Bill 1988 Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1988 Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1988 Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1988 Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Amendment Bill 1988 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill 1988 Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1988 Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1988 Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill 1988 Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1988 Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1988 Honey Marketing Bill 1988 Senator ALSTON(Victoria) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present a report entitled The National Crime Authority-An Initial Evaluation. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report. Leave granted. Senator ALSTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The occasion for this report is the lifting of the sunset clause in the National Crime Authority Act 1984, which would otherwise have terminated the life of the Authority on 30 June 1989. The Committee supports the lifting of the sunset clause although it considers that, because so many of the Authority's investigations and the resultant legal proceedings have yet to be completed, it can make only an initial evaluation of the Authority's performance at this time. Because legal proceedings are currently before the courts or are pending in relation to a number of matters the Committee has been obliged in its report to be circumspect and to confine itself to generalities. Looking back on the debate leading up to the establishment of the National Crime Authority (NCA), the Committee considers that there was a clear expectation that the Authority would get results. The primary objective for which the Authority was established was, the Committee believes, to put significant criminals behind bars. In those terms the Authority is beginning to demonstrate success. It has put the Cornwell-Bull drug trafficking syndicate out of business and it has obtained convictions of significant figures under two of its other references. The terms of imprisonment imposed on Cornwell and Bull-23 years and 18 years respectively-indicate the gravity with which the courts viewed their activities. Terms of imprisonment of 24 years and 20 years have been imposed on principals under another reference, and the maximum term of imprisonment available for the offence concerned-three years-has been imposed on the principal under a third reference. Numerous other matters are before the courts at the moment. The success of the Authority cannot merely be measured by the successful prosecutions resulting from its investigations, however. There was also an expectation that the establishment of the Authority would have a deterrent effect: that by its success in its investigations and, possibly, by its very existence, it would increase the fear of detection and apprehension in the minds of those who might be tempted to enter the field of organised criminal activity. It is too early to say whether the Authority has succeeded in this second objective. The Committee therefore recommends that a more comprehensive evaluation of the Authority's work and of the success of the law enforcement strategy underpinning the establishment of the Authority be undertaken in three years time. By that stage more of the Authority's investigations and more of the resulting legal proceedings should have been completed and it should be possible to make some judgment as to whether the Authority has in fact altered the climate in which organised crime operates. The Committee does not recommend any changes to the Bill lifting the sunset clause, the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, to which the House of Representatives has already agreed, nor does it recommend any changes to the legislation constituting the National Crime Authority at this stage. It has, however, identified the present limitations on the Authority's access to taxation records as a matter which it proposes to pursue in a further inquiry. The Committee does, however, recommend some changes to the Authority's present handling of the police component of its staff. It became clear to the Committee in the course of this inquiry that there was considerable dissatisfaction in police ranks about their role in the Authority's investigations and the Authority's perceived attitude to police. The Committee recommends that the Authority give greater recognition to the expertise of experienced police officers and that they should be given a greater involvement in its investigations. The Committee also recommends that the police component of the Authority's staff be given contracts rather than being seconded in order to overcome the problem of officers working together but being subject to different terms and conditions of employment, and it recommends that consideration be given to the appointment of a senior and respected serving or former police officer as a member of the Authority in order that police may be assured that their views are represented at the highest levels of the Authority. Finally, the Committee has recommended that the Authority give greater consideration to the use of police task forces external to the Authority as a means of carrying on its investigations. While rejecting much of the criticism made of the secrecy surrounding the Authority's operations, the Committee has also recommended that the Authority give consideration to making greater use of its power to inform the public about the general conduct of its operations by holding public sittings and issuing public bulletins. Certain of the fears expressed at the time of the establishment of the Authority, both as to the obstacles which might lie in the way of its effective performance of its functions and the potential threat to civil liberties which it posed, appear to date to have proven groundless. So far from being a `ninth police force', as some have claimed, the Authority is a unique and novel investigative agency, combining elements of traditional law enforcement agencies with the powers of a royal commission and able to use the one to complement the other. The Committee believes that Mr Justice Stewart, the members and senior staff of the Authority deserve credit for having turned this experiment into a successful working reality. Having made those remarks about the work of the Committee, I wish to comment particularly about the actions of others in the community who are not so charitably minded about the activities of the National Crime Authority. One person in particular about whom I express grave concern is a prominent Melbourne lawyer by the name of Mr Frank Galbally. It is significant that in the Press he is never referred to as a well respected or even a highly successful lawyer: he is simply referred to as a prominent Melbourne lawyer. Mr Galbally's firm has been recently acting for two persons accused of serious charges in New South Wales-Jennifer and Giuseppe Sergi. Mr Galbally has appeared for one of those persons. On the strength of conspiracy charges against his client being dismissed a matter of days ago, Mr Galbally has taken it upon himself to deliver a sweeping broadside against the National Crime Authority, describing it as a disastrous body. Never mind the fact that his client might still be proceeded against by way of ex officio indictment. Never mind that the magistrate's decision is capable of review on a matter of law. No, Mr Galbally could not wait to seize the opportunity to promote himself and his very expensive services. This performance is entirely consistent with his long history as a notorious media grandstander and ambulance chaser. However, a matter of most utter concern is that, whilst the conspiracy charges against his client-a co-accused of Mr Al Grassby-were dismissed, Mr Grassby still faces a charge of criminal defamation. As Mr Galbally well knows, this matter has been adjourned to enable the magistrate to decide whether the defamation proceedings should be stayed on the grounds of inordinate delay in the bringing of the proceedings. That matter will be listed for mention tomorrow and, as I understand it, a judgment will be delivered next Friday. Even more important is the fact that the question of costs is still pending. In typical style, Mr Galbally has engaged in a classic piece of hyperbole and overblown rhetoric, calling the case `the most disgraceful example of a prosecution I have seen in 40 years'. It does not take much imagination to recognise that these remarks could well be seen as a veiled attempt to influence the outcome of the outstanding proceedings. By publicly discrediting the NCA Mr Galbally improves his chance of success on the question of costs. As will be well understood, the question of a stay is one of discretion and the magistrate will take into account a number of factors-not simply the question of delay but also whether the Crown has acted properly, whether it has exercised due diligence, whether it comes before the court with clean hands and whether it is proper in all the circumstances that the matter should be allowed to proceed. In relation to each of those matters the magistrate must make a very careful and balanced judgment. Mr Galbally's remarks can only have the effect of making the magistrate's task much harder, and indeed they could improperly influence the outcome. Mr Galbally's behaviour and his actions are calculated to undermine public confidence in the NCA. Mr Galbally is not concerned with the effect of enforcement of the criminal justice system in this country. If he had any serious concern about the operations of the NCA he should have made a submission to the parliamentary Joint Committee, the report of which I am now speaking to. In February 1988, following the introduction of the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 in the House of Representatives to lift the sunset clause, the Committee wrote again to the four State Premiers who at that time had not responded to our request for cooperation. It also wrote again to the State and Federal police associations and to the legal academics and criminologists whom it had previously contacted; and it extended an invitation for submissions from the Law Council of Australia, law societies and bar associations, the Council for Civil Liberties, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and certain judges, lawyers and an investigative journalist who had made substantial submissions to the original inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs into the National Crime Authority Bill 1983. Finally, on 5 March 1988 the Committee placed advertisements in the national Press calling on interested persons and organisations to make submissions to its inquiry by 31 March. A total of 61 persons and bodies were contacted and 21 submissions were received. The Committee held two in camera hearings in Canberra in April 1988. However, Mr Galbally did not bother to make any submission whatsoever, either oral or written. Rather, he has chosen to seize an opportunity to make yet another grubby media appearance and mouth off in characteristically broad terms, which does nothing to contribute to the quality of debate about the role of the NCA, and he did not attempt to distinguish between the charges that are outstanding and those that have been dismissed. I think it can be properly said that Mr Galbally's actions should be the subject of very close scrutiny by the appropriate law enforcement officers to determine whether he is in contempt of the court. Certainly one would have thought that, if the NCA had come out after the decision to dismiss the charges and been critical of the decision, it would have been properly lambasted by the community at large and certainly by the legal profession in particular. My purpose in speaking this afternoon is not to attempt in any way to influence the proper decisions that must be made impartially by judicial officers; instead, it is to draw attention to what I regard as a very serious deficiency in the conduct of one particular individual whose actions are calculated only to make the task of law enforcement so much harder in this country. A proper and reasoned evaluation of the NCA cannot be made in a definitive sense at this stage and it will be necessary to continue a monitoring process. I look forward to the Committee's exercising very close scrutiny and hearing directly from officers of the Authority. I think the NCA should take into account the very proper public concerns that have been expressed. If the alternative is simply to vacate the field and allow organised crime to conduct its activities without any form of supervisory body, I think that would be a disaster for law enforcement and justice in this country and it would be a very one-sided victory for the forces of darkness. Mr Galbally's comments have made it that much harder for a body such as the NCA to carry out its proper responsibilities. Temperate criticism is one thing but thoroughly intemperate and tendentious comments of the nature made by Mr Galbally are entirely another. I regard it as utterly inappropriate and inexcusable for him to deliver this tirade. I hope that in the future any similar performance is treated with the contempt that it deserves. I welcome the report and look forward to participating further in the activities of the Committee and in being scrupulous in ensuring that the NCA remains an efficient and effective body in the fight against all levels of crime in this country. Without a strong crime fighting body there can be no effective guarantee of safety for the public at large. I think that we all have a very strong self-interest to ensure that law enforcement agencies are given all the support they need. Senator HILL(South Australia)(6.16) —I take this opportunity to speak briefly to the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority report; it has been presented at an opportune time because public debate on the National Crime Authority (NCA) is heating up. Very powerful vested interests in this country want to see the NCA discredited. I do not wish to see it discredited because I still believe that the combination of professional expertise, the national and international perspective of the NCA and its special powers make it the only way to curb major organised crime in this country. In my opinion it is the only way to counter the level of sophistication, the financial resources and professional expertise available to major criminals. I think we have found that traditional police forces will continually run up against brick walls in these areas, brick walls of State boundaries, restricted jurisdictions, conflicting priorities, lack of resources, lack of staff, including legal, accounting and financial skills, and a community reluctant to extend electronic listening powers or coercive powers in the gathering of evidence. In many of those areas one can understand the community's reluctance. We have given the NCA a major responsibility and we have given it exceptional powers to meet that responsibility. In my opinion it has provided the first major obstacle to the `Mr Bigs' of Australian crime. It is a hindrance to their organisations and the enormous power, influence and wealth that they command. As stated in the report, few of these persons have yet been put behind bars, but there is little doubt on the evidence put before the Committee that they are concerned-and perhaps concerned for the first time. They want to see the NCA discredited. If the NCA is forced onto the defensive, and if public support wanes, it will soon be undermined and it will soon become ineffective. There is a lot working against the NCA. There is a level of corruption at senior levels in some existing police forces that can be described only as shocking, and when that is linked with political corruption it becomes terrifying. One need only reflect briefly on what is coming out of the Fitzgerald inquiry in Queensland. I applaud the fact that Mr Greiner is to institute a similar investigation in New South Wales. I guess it was brought home to me when the Committee was taking evidence in another inquiry and heard from a witness who had received a death threat because of his knowledge of certain criminal activity. Because of this knowledge he put to us his dilemma as to who he should turn to if he cannot turn for protection to the police or to those who are elected to office. One sees the difficulties facing the NCA in carrying out its task when one reflects on the fact that of two police officers assigned to it as liaison officers by State police forces, one is currently on criminal charges and the other has personally acknowledged that he is corrupt. When assessing the record of the NCA to date, one must take such difficulties into account. Regrettably, my State of South Australia is not exempt from what we are seeing elsewhere in Australia. There is growing evidence of police corruption in South Australia-of police corruption facilitating organised crime in areas of drugs, prostitution and SP bookmaking to an extent which most South Australians would have thought unbelievable. I regret to say that I see insufficient determination on the part of the South Australian Police Force to root out that evil from within. I also see insufficient acknowledgment by the South Australian Government of the problem and insufficient efforts by that Government to counter it. For the South Australian Government simply to say that a need for an inquiry would be brought to its attention by the NCA is to misunderstand the responsibility of the NCA. It is in fact the responsibility of the State Government. I am pleased that in an answer to a question in this chamber some time ago, at least Senator Tate was prepared to acknowledge that. I do not wish to see Fitzgerald-type inquiries instituted unnecessarily, obviously on civil libertarian grounds. But I regret that in South Australia there is building public evidence that is coming very close at this stage to warranting such an inquiry. I remind the Senate that it is the honest police officers-the majority of police officers-who deserve our protection. As we know, they are critical to securing the type of lifestyle that we wish and expect in this country. As has been seen in Queensland, a public inquiry may, in some circumstances, be the only way to counter the insidious pressures that are put upon them by those to whom they traditionally turn for an example-their leaders within the police force. I think we, in this chamber, must accept that these police are, to a considerable extent, in my opinion anyway, underpaid and their services underrecognised. It is up to the Government and this Parliament to do something to remedy such shortcomings. Apart from the obstacle of corruption, the NCA will also be under pressure from those who have normal professional jealousies-that is, within existing police forces-and from those who argue that the NCA be an entirely different type of body from that which it now is, those who argue that its functions be simply intelligence gathering rather than investigative. So the pressures on the NCA are great. This indicates to me that there is an even greater responsibility on those of us who see that it has to play a critical role in countering organised crime in the future to ensure that it is fairly and properly defended. Of course, that cannot be done without the proper evaluation of how the NCA is going about its task. That is a responsibility that falls on the Government. It falls on the Minister for Justice in this chamber. It falls on other Ministers and attorneys-general and justice Ministers within the States. They must not seek to avoid their responsibilities. In passing, I say that I regret that Senator Tate, for example, today indicated that, in the case of the prosecution of the South Australian Assistant Commissioner Harvey, he had not called for an inquiry and, therefore, was not in possession of the facts which I would like to see him possess. It is not only the responsibility of the Government to ensure that this body is carrying out its functions in a proper way but it is also the responsibility of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority which has put down this report today. This Committee has a responsibility of assuring the public that the NCA deserves the respect that we believe is necessary for it to carry out its functions properly and efficiently. There have been a number of serious criticisms of the NCA-some of them very recently. Two of these I reflected upon a couple of months ago in this chamber and I mentioned one of them a moment ago. The first was the dismissal by a magistrate of a case of conspiracy against a South Australian senior police officer, Assistant Commissioner Harvey, who is currently suspended. This case of conspiracy between him and others was dismissed by the magistrate on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to put the case before a jury. One wonders how the proceedings got to that stage if there was simply insufficient evidence to put before the magistrate. The second case was also South Australian. It was one of conspiracy against police officers-unnamed in South Australia because of a suppression order and I will not name them now-which was also dismissed at the magistrate's level and incurred certain public criticism of the NCA. The third case, only a few days ago, was the dismissal of the case against Mr Al Grassby and others. It was not the dismissal that was of significance but the very critical comments made of the NCA by the magistrate. The Joint Committee is able, and has a responsibility, to investigate these matters. In this report, we have spoken of the NCA's performance generally but the Committee also has a responsibility to investigate these matters specifically and ensure that the NCA is meeting its charter responsibilities. In the first two instances, the Committee has been able to question members of the National Crime Authority at some length in relation to these matters. The action against unnamed police officers in South Australia turned out to be a request from the South Australian Police Commissioner that the NCA carry out an investigation for the South Australian authorities. The South Australian authorities then decided to take action. Therefore, it logically followed that when the case failed, it was unfair of the Press to be critical of the NCA in its operation. It simply was not an NCA prosecution. We were able to establish that at the committee level and I am pleased to stand here and assure the Parliament of that fact and, therefore, hopefully in some small way to reassure the public on that matter. The second criticism of South Australia is not so easily dismissed. Although I regret that I cannot go into details, it is fair to say that the NCA recognises some shortcomings in its handling of that matter, and in making its explanation to the Committee it raised aspects of that particular prosecution which will require further investigation by the Committee before I and others can stand in this place and reassure the public. Certainly, I will be looking to the Committee to continue its investigation of that matter in order that we can give the Parliament those reassurances. The third matter-the Al Grassby prosecution-falls into a similar category. Very serious allegations have been made about the prosecution in that instance and of the NCA in particular. I can assure you, Mr Deputy President, that the Committee will, in that instance, investigate the matter thoroughly and report to this Parliament. It will take what remedial action it thinks necessary in order that the public can maintain the confidence that is necessary for the NCA to function effectively. I simply wanted to make those few comments to reassure you, Mr Deputy President, and the Senate that the Committee has an important responsibility to deal with these criticisms specifically and not just to deal with the matters in the general way that has appeared in this preliminary report put down today. Mr Deputy President, you can expect the Committee to come back on these matters in due course. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator BEAHAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I table a report entitled One Vote, One Value, being the report of the Committee's inquiry into the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987, together with a supplementary paper to the report. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the report. Leave granted. (Quorum formed) Senator BEAHAN —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. One Vote, One Value is the title of the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The report presents the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987. The Bill seeks to enshrine in the Constitution the principle of one vote one value by requiring that the numbers of voters in electorates are, as nearly as practicable, the same. The Bill aims to rid voters of the problem of malapportionment; that is, the practice of unequally apportioning voters between electorates. The Committee makes a clear distinction between malapportionment and gerrymandering. Honourable senators may be interested to know that the term `gerrymander' came originally from Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts in the early part of the last century and refers to boundary rigging. It does not refer to numbers. The malapportionment refers to the numbers in an electorate and the unequal apportionment of those numbers from electorate to electorate. The Committee notes in its report that the achievement of one vote one value does not stop the possibility of gerrymandering. The Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987 was introduced into the Senate by the Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Michael Macklin, on 23 September 1987. The Senate referred the Bill to the Committee for inquiry and report on 28 October 1987. In inquiring into Senator Macklin's Bill, the Committee continued the work of its predecessor, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Prior to the dissolution of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, the Joint Select Committee was inquiring into the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1985. The 1985 Bill was an earlier version of the 1987 Bill. The Committee notes in its report that both Senator Macklin's 1985 Bill and the 1987 Bill are very similar to the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1974 which was introduced into the Parliament by a former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. The Committee has found that there is a clear historical trend in Australia towards fairer electoral boundaries which seek to give all electors an equal say in determining who shall form their government. Nevertheless, it believes that there is a pressing need for further reforms in State electoral laws as they apply to the Western Australian Legislative Council, the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, the Tasmanian Legislative Council and the Queensland Legislative Assembly. Using the three accepted measures of malapportionment-the David-Eisenberg index, the Dauer-Kelsay index and the Gini index-the gross malapportionment evident in each of the chambers cited cries out for action. It is unfair and undemocratic for an Assembly seat in Queensland to have only 8,256 voters while another has more than 25,000 voters. It is unfair and undemocratic for one electorate in the Western Australian Legislative Council to have about 12,000 electors per member while another has 40,000 electors per member. In this regard it is difficult to understand the stand taken by Opposition members of the Committee who, in a dissenting report, oppose the concept of one vote one value. Given the bipartisan support for equality of electorates in the House of Representatives, I cannot understand how they oppose equal State electorates. The arguments are twofold. The first is that the Senate is malapportioned and, therefore, the States should be left to sort out their own malapportionment and to escape the test of fairness. However, in making that statement, they forget that the Senate was an historical compromise. If they want to go a bit further-I and many honourable senators here would not oppose it-they could attempt to reform what I believe is an undemocratic House. However, I do not think that they are going that far. As an historical compromise, the Senate is a States House. That is why it was established in that way. More importantly, the Government is not formed in the Senate. In some of the malapportioned Houses to which I have referred, the opposite is the case. The second aspect of the argument goes to States' rights. Whereas some States have shown no inclination to reform, the trend over time towards reform has been patchy and some States-particularly those that I have mentioned-have shown absolutely no interest in reform. The Committee has found that most Australian parliaments now provide that electoral boundaries should be drawn so that electorates have enrolments which vary from the State average by less than 10 per cent. In the Northern Territory, the maximum is 20 per cent. The Committee concludes that, as a general principle, redistributions should aim to have electoral enrolments which are within 10 per cent of the average enrolment. Regrettably, the Committee is unable to accept the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987, as it was referred to the Committee, as a model for implementing one vote one value. In particular, the Committee has been unable to accept the equality tests which are contained in the Bill. The Committee has some concerns with the Bill's provisions for elections at large. It has also found the Bill to be deficient in its lack of a provision for the filling of casual vacancies. The Committee believes that amendments to the 1987 Bill proposed by Senator Macklin and designed to prevent the practice of gerrymandering are lacking in certainty and, therefore, are impractical. The Committee notes in its report that electoral reforms with regard to one vote one value have already occurred in South Australia and Victoria and that in Western Australia there has been an attempt at reform. The Committee concludes that reform may occur in individual States, but that there is no guarantee of this. The Committee has concluded that the Federal Government has a clear responsibility to act to overcome what the Committee sees as an infringement of the individual rights of Australians to have an equal say in choosing their governments. The Committee's view is that the final question in achieving one vote one value is one of State governments' rights versus individuals' rights and that the latter is of paramount importance. The Committee recommends strongly that the views of Australian voters on one vote one value be tested by way of a referendum. The tabling of this report represents the culmination of work which began with the former Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 1985 which was chaired by Senator Robert Ray. The Committee wishes to express its gratitude to the Joint Select Committee for its work and, in particular, for the excellent chairmanship of Senator Ray. The Joint Select Committee held public hearings in Brisbane and Perth and received a substantial amount of evidence which has been most useful to the Electoral Matters Committee. The Committee has also been greatly assisted in its inquiry by the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Electoral Commission and, in particular, the Electoral Commissioner, Dr Colin Hughes. On behalf of the Committee I also thank the staff of the former Joint Select Committee, Don Nairn and, later on for a short period, Mike Fetter. I thank also the Committee's current small secretariat, Trevor Rowe and Helen Misa, for the willing support given to the inquiry and their capacity for extremely hard work in the last few weeks. Since completing the drafting of its report the Committee has received new data on electoral divisions, in particular in Western Australia, which has recently undergone a redistribution as a result of very limited electoral reform proposals passed by both Houses of Parliament in that State last year. The Committee has prepared, therefore, a supplementary paper to its report which includes this new data. The data shows that while the situation in Western Australia has improved marginally, when measured by any of the indices to which I have already referred and used by the Committee, the malapportionment in Western Australia still shows the worst distortions of any State. In other words, the same arguments still apply despite the reported changes contained in the supplementary papers attached to the report. I commend the report to honourable senators and trust that it will contribute to healthy and constructive debate on the question of electoral reform. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.12) —I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which has just tabled its report-One Vote, One Value. I therefore rise to comment briefly on the report with quite a deal of pride in its outcome. I think that when honourable senators and the wider community have had a chance to read the report it will be found to be a document of very considerable educational and other benefit to the community and, indeed, to the Parliament because it contains a great deal of very interesting, important and worthwhile information on the whole subject of gerrymanders and malapportionments in electoral practices and the like. I would venture to say that this report is a report which, in terms of its factual content, will be very valued by many people and institutions. Having said that I would also like to join with Senator Beahan, who tabled the report on behalf of the Committee, in thanking the staff of the Committee, in particular our secretary, Trevor Rowe, and our assistant, Helen Misa, for the enormous amount of work they have done. I hope that they feel, as they should, that they can take great credit from the contribution they have made. I feel that some of the remarks that have been made both by Senator Beahan here and by Mr Lee in the other House in tabling this report may lead to some misunderstanding on the part of listeners and of readers of Hansard as to what was agreed and not agreed in the report. I would like to direct my comments to that area because I should say at the outset that there is a significant minority report in the tabled document so far as the key recommendation of the Committee is concerned. I refer to the recommendation that we should put to the test, in the form of a referendum, the issue of one vote one value, so-called. I will come back to that in a moment because I think that is one of the most misleading statements that has been made in a long time in this Parliament and outside. However, leaving that aside for the moment, there is some misunderstanding as to the nature of the dissenting view that has been expressed in the report. I point out also that it is a dissenting view of a minority which comprises only marginally less than half of the Committee members. In regard to the key recommendation, the Committee was divided 6:4. The six members of the Committee who represented the majority comprised the five Labor members plus, understandably, of course, the Australian Democrat representative. On the other side were the three Committee members from the two major coalition parties-the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia-plus Senator Harradine. They formed a minority of four to the majority of six. Therefore, there was a divided view by the Committee on the key premise. Tonight I want to devote a little time to this because what we are really talking about in the Committee report is, in my view, the two important referendum issues of the four issues that will be put to the Australian people in early September. This is assuming the four referendum Bills pass through the Parliament-which I understand will be the case because the Australian Democrats will support the Government in the Senate in passing these. Of course, one of those four Bills is a Bill to put to referendum: An Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. It has been said elsewhere by the Hon. Ralph Hunt and others that that in itself is a very misleading title for any referendum Bill. It is grossly misleading. Senator Stone —The choice of such a title casts a reflection on the Government in putting it forward. Senator SHORT —As Senator Stone said, it does cast a great deal of doubt on the good faith of the Government in putting it forward. It also highlights the fact that, of course, the proposals were put forward before the Constitutional Commission, which had been set up by the Government at great cost, had even reported. The whole of the referendum legislation is a hoax. The referendum Bill to which this report relates is at least equal to the greatest of the hoaxes. Let me just get the matter in perspective because there have been a lot of misleading statements in recent days by the Government, the media and others, including, I would have to say, Senator Beahan and in the other place, Mr Lee, as to the basis for the Opposition's opposition to the referendum proposal. The implication of what Senator Beahan said and what Mr Lee said in the other place was that somehow or other the Liberal and National Party coalition was opposed to the principle of one vote one value. That has never been at issue in this debate. It was not at issue in the consideration of this report. There is no senator on this side of the House who would not agree that a more equal numbering of voters in electorates is a desirable thing at both State and Federal level. We have supported it. Senator Schacht —Does the National Party agree with that? Senator SHORT —Yes; we have supported it and pursued it at Federal level. The Government is ignoring the fact that other considerations are involved in election procedures and practices, particularly when those procedures and practices relate to the States. Anyone listening to Government spokesmen on this matter would think there was no such thing in this country as a federation. This whole nation has been built as a federation. It was built on a compact between a Federal Government and State governments, and an essential element of that compact was that the States would give to the Commonwealth certain powers and keep to themselves, by agreement, all the others. An essential right of the States is the right to determine their electoral practices and their electoral systems. The great myth, the great hoax, being put around in recent days is that somehow or other the rights of the States do not matter. That is something with which we on this side of the chamber fundamentally disagree. That is the fundamental disagreement in this debate. State elections are, under our Constitution, the prerogative of the States. Another point has been ignored in this debate on the tabling of this report. We have to point out very clearly that over recent years there has been a significant move in the States towards more equal numbering in terms of the balance between electorates. Four of the six States have moved significantly over recent years to a more equal distribution of voters in the electorates. Senator Schacht —Will Queensland ever move of its own volition? Senator SHORT —I think it will because the trend has been followed progressively over recent years. Let me quote from the preface to the report, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Lee, which says, and it is repeated elsewhere in the report: The Committee has found there to be a clear historical trend in Australia towards fairer electoral boundaries which seek to give all electors an equal say in determining who shall form their government. In the dissenting or minority report-it is only just a minority report; four to six-to which I was a party-- Senator Schacht —Six always beats four-except in Queensland. Senator SHORT —One very sad thing about democracy in this country-or the lack of it so far as the other side of politics is concerned-is that members of the Australian Labor Party play politics entirely on the basis of numbers. There are more things to politics than that. The electors of Australia are waking up to that. One key point in the minority report, signed by the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, Mr Blunt, by Mr Shack, by myself and by Senator Harradine is referred to in paragraph 7, which states: The Committee finds `there is a clear historical trend towards fairer electoral boundaries . . .' and concludes, in time individual States may achieve electoral reform. That is the Committee's statement. The minority four say: This recognition of the progress to reform undermines the justification for Commonwealth involvement to force change in an area where States are not only sovereign but also are taking action. It may also limit progress to further voluntary change. That is an important point that needs to be made in this debate and in the wider consideration of this report by the Parliament and the community. The assumption is that by the Federal Government riding jack boot over the States somehow or other we will be able to provide, as Federal politicians in the Federal Parliament, a better and fairer system for the States. Setting aside altogether the rights of the States, to which I have already referred-rights that those on the opposite side of politics completely ignore-the assumption that Federal interference, involvement and coercion will lead to a fairer and better electoral system in the States is a very questionable proposition. The history of this country is replete with examples of coercion and compulsion leading to a result totally counterproductive to what the proponents of the changes might have had. I also draw the Senate's attention to some other important points made in the dissenting report. Let me quote two or three of them. The first is that we on this side of politics believe it is: . . . inappropriate for any constitutional referenda to proceed without it first being considered by a conference of elected representatives of the Commonwealth and the States, i.e. a Constitutional Convention. That is of fundamental importance. In 1985 the Hawke Government said, `We think if we set up a group of 20 or thereabouts absolutely unelected representatives and get them to look at change to the Constitution, and if we get our numbers right in terms of who those people are, we will get a result that will benefit the ideology that we in the Labor Party are putting forward and we will get a better system'. Over the last three years, and now without even waiting for the final report of the Constitutional Commission which the Government set up, the Government has prostituted the normal process for looking at constitutional change in this country which has been accepted on a bipartisan basis for many years in the form of a Constitutional Convention. A further point is that the report suggests that we would have fair elections if we followed the proposals now enshrined in the Constitution referendum Bills. That ignores a fundamental point-a point Senator Beahan alluded to; even Government members would recognise this-that even if we went ahead with this proposal it would not lead to fair elections if by `fair elections' we mean exactly one vote one value, whatever that means. It is a nonsense term because it is so open to differing interpretation. The Committee found that the proposal in Senator Macklin's Bill had inherent defects, and none of the 10 members of the Committee-including Senator Coulter, the Australian Democrats' representative on the Committee-dissented from the finding of the Committee that the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987, which was the basis of the Committee's report, had inherent defects in it. One of the things that the Bill does not do, one of the things that the constitutional referendum proposals presently before the Parliament do not do, is tackle the question of gerrymanders. As we all know, there are two major elements of difficulty in terms of conducting elections-namely, malapportionment and gerrymanders. They are fundamentally different. Senator Robert Ray —But they go hand in hand. Senator SHORT —Senator Ray will acknowledge that they are fundamentally different. Senator Robert Ray —But you can have both at one time. Senator SHORT —I assume that Senator Ray would agree with me-surely he could not disagree-that neither this Bill nor the constitutional referendum proposal that the Government has put forward touches the area of gerrymanders. Senator Robert Ray —It severely limits the opportunity for them. It does not wipe them out. Senator SHORT —It does not deal specifically with gerrymanders. Senator Schacht —That is patently absurd. Senator SHORT —This is the first time that I have heard Senator Schacht say that this operation tackles or deals with gerrymanders. It does not and I challenge the honourable senator to say the opposite. Senator Schacht —I will. I will speak in a moment and explain it to you-slowly so that you can understand it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order, Senator Schacht. You can make a speech later if you wish. Senator SHORT —I have already touched on the other main points in the dissenting report. However, they are worth quoting if for no other reason than to get them onto the record. Point 4 of the dissenting report states: The proposed referendum is in conflict with the philosphy of a `Federal Compact', which is a corner stone of the Federation as expressed in Sections 106 and 107 of the Constitution. . . . . The intrusion of the Commonwealth is unwarranted and would be a first step in dissolving our federal system. That does not seem to be a matter of great moment to members of the Government. Unless I misunderstood him, Senator Beahan said in his comments that one of the things he would not mind seeing at all is the abandonment of the Senate. But that, of course, is not surprising because for many years that has been the ultimate goal of the Australian Labor Party. That is the whole basis for the debate that is taking place now as to the reasons and the motivation for the constitutional referendum Bills that are now before the Parliament. There is no logical reason for bringing these Bills into the Parliament at this time other than to reduce, weaken and ultimately destroy the Senate. I defy members of the Government opposite to argue contrary to that. A majority of the Committee also put forward a proposal to incorporate provisions affecting State electoral laws. This proposal is addressed by point 8-the final point-in the dissenting report. The dissenting report states: The proposal to incorporate provisions affecting State electoral laws in the Commonwealth Constitution will inevitably result in the High Court becoming involved in disputes over these issues. These disputes are invariably Party political in character. This will politicise the Court. Additionally, there are some limits through Section 24 of the Constitution on the right of the Commonwealth to draw electoral boundaries. We have not looked at testing the constitutionality of what is being talked about at the moment. Although that is another matter, it is one of very great significance and potential importance. This is a very important report because of its value so far as its factual content is concerned. It is also a very valuable report in that it brings out very starkly and very clearly the issues involved in one of the basic matters that are going to be put to the Australian people in the next few months in terms of changing our Constitution. I hope that the report will be very widely read. It should form an integral part of the debate that will be taking place in the next few months. I believe that the electorate and this Parliament will say two things of the majority report when they look at the content of the report and the issues involved. First, they will say the recommendations in the report will not inevitably lead to fairer elections. Let me repeat that there is no dispute between this side of the chamber and the Government in terms of the desirability of moving at the State level as we have at the Federal level-this has been done in at least four of the six States-towards a more equitable and more equal distribution of numbers in electorates. The second point that will be debated and must be debated and given the greatest consideration is the relationship involved in a federal compact. Whether we like the fact that we have a federal system is a separate point. We have a federal compact between a Federal government and State governments and parliaments. I believe that the Australian community as a whole will look very seriously at and be very worried about a jack boots approach such as is proposed here which rides roughshod over the rights of the States. I am very pleased to have been a member of the Committee. I want to commend everybody involved for the hard work that has been put into this very high quality report. I am also very pleased to have been one of the four members of the Committee who signed the dissenting report. I believe that accepting the majority report of this Committee would place our Federal system in jeopardy. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.37) —I welcome the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987, which I first introduced over four years ago-in fact, on 2 April 1984. That Bill has been through quite a number of stages. Interestingly enough, Senator Short managed to miss one of those stages, as did other people who were involved in the minority report. One of the fundamentally important points that the members of the Committee involved with the dissenting report wished to make was contained in the following statement: We believe it inappropriate for any constitutional referenda to proceed without it first being considered by a conference of elected representatives of the Commonwealth and the States, i.e. a Constitutional Convention. Actually, on 1 August 1985 a vote was taken on this Bill at the Constitutional Convention. The vote was 39 to 29. I draw Senator Short's attention to the fact that the first fundamental point of the dissenting report was achieved. Obviously, he had not bothered to do his homework and did not know that my private member's Bill had been on the agenda in Brisbane, had been considered and had been passed. It was the only private member's Bill on the agenda and, therefore, it was the only one that had a chance of being passed, and it was passed. I do not want to go into enormous detail with regard to some of the propositions that the Committee has come up with. Fairly obviously, I would still disagree with a number of them. For example, I would still disagree with the recommendation on the way that one may draft a constitutional Bill as distinct from another piece of legislation. Hence, I would feel that `something as near as practicable' is a constitutional wording whereas `10 per cent', which was in my later Bill, is more legislative wording. However, I think the important point is that the majority of the Committee found in favour of the principle of putting this issue to the people. I find it very difficult to understand Senator Short's position when he says that the proposed referendum is in conflict with the philosophy of a federal compact. In fact, the federal compact, if Senator Short wishes to read it, has a section in which the people are actually asked about their own Constitution. Section 128 provides for a method whereby we can go to the people and ask, `Do you wish to change the Constitution in that regard?'. That seems to me to be perfectly in keeping with the federal compact. For the life of me, I cannot see how a proposed referendum can be in conflict with that if it is conducted correctly under section 128. Whether the people accept it is a different matter, but asking the people certainly cannot be in conflict with the federal compact. To suggest that, I think, is absurd and demonstrates an obviously myopic reading of the Constitution. I wish to look in some detail at a point which the Opposition has raised on a number of occasions and which Senator Short has raised here tonight. It is to do with the difference between malapportionment and gerrymander. As I understand the Opposition's position, it is something like this: `We will be opposing the Bill anyhow, but one of the reasons we do not think the Bill is any good is that it does not reform the entire world'. It seems to me that when those two reasons are distilled that they are in conflict. I had always believed that the Liberal Party was a reformist party, believing that if one could reform part of the world one might give it a shot, but obviously it is not. Senator Schacht —It may have been Alfred Deakin. Senator MACKLIN —It may very well have been Alfred Deakin. It seems to me that if one attempts to do away with one part of the rorting of the system, that is worth while supporting. I noticed that Senator Short and those who supported him in the minority report skirted very carefully around any proposal or any suggested amendment dealing with the gerrymander. There is one good reason for that, of course. That is, as anybody who bothers to read the judgments of the United States Supreme Court on this matter will know, that the technicalities of the matter are extreme. Interestingly, this morning when I was in a session of the conference of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science a paper was presented by an American academic looking at the statistical basis of principles to deal with gerrymander following the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court decided that it was a justifiable issue in the United States of America but that the particular case that was brought before it had not been proved to be an example of a gerrymander. The difficulties there are extreme in determining the various criteria that one may wish to use to identify a gerrymander and, secondly, in doing so, in determining whether on each of those criteria a particular drawing of boundaries is seen exclusively to be unfair. My proposal in the Committee's hearing in Brisbane on 10 November last year was for an amendment to my Bill along the following lines: The process of determining the boundaries of electoral divisions referred to in this section shall be based upon fair and non-partisan proceedings and criteria designed to ensure equal suffrage and free expression of the will of the electors. That wording was an attempt to express a constitutional approach rather than a legislative approach. I depart from both the majority and, I presume, the minority of the Committee in regard to the following recommendation: . . . the wording of Senator Macklin's proposed amendments to the 1987 Bill which aim to prevent the practice of gerrymandering are lacking in certainty. That might be a statement of the obvious, but if anybody here is able to tell me of any part of the Constitution which is certain, I would be very interested. In the last debate on this matter I raised the issue of section 92, which deals with free trade between the States and which, when it was passed in the Constitutional Convention, was said to be at last an example of plain language. Yet the first High Court judgment, given by the first four High Court judges in the history of this country, all of whom had been in the room when that section passed the Constitutional Convention, was split 2:2. In other words, those four fathers of the Constitution were unable to agree on the meaning of section 92 relating to free trade between the States. I would have thought that that section might be said to lack certainty. We have recently noted the sections of the Constitution dealing with the position of Senator Wood. Since the High Court adjourned to consider its verdict with regard to that matter, we have been canvassing amongst ourselves what might be the outcome. That case was not certain. No court cases, certainly in the High Court, are certain in that sense. So I find odd the suggestion that my proposed amendments to the Bill lack certainty. I would be the first to agree, but that does not seem to be anywhere near the point. I had hoped that they would be taken as an attempt to approach this area from a lateral viewpoint, from the point of view of attempting to write a constitutional provision rather than a legislative provision. I could go through various other technical differences that I may have with the Committee; nevertheless, of the fundamental points I am very pleased that the majority of the Committee agreed that this is a serious item upon which the people of Australia should be asked their opinion. I remind Senator Short and other honourable senators who supported his comments that that is all that this Parliament is entitled to do. It is entitled only to put something to the people, to ask the people their view. I fail to see how this can be jack-booting. Asking the people their view is now described, in Senator Short's terms, as jack-booting. This is an extraordinary proposition. Senator Stone —You have already spent $6m trying to persuade them to that view. You have already spent $6m on propaganda of one kind or another. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Stone is again making inane comments from the corner from which he was previously giving directions to Senator Short-possibly the jack boot corner of the Senate. Senator Stone's proposition is an interesting one-that the people of Australia should not be asked their view on this matter. Section 128 of the Constitution was inserted at the very beginning to provide for the possibility of questions going to the people. Indeed, there will be another debate when we get to the four questions that I would hope might have the support of this chamber; that is, on the proposal for a constitutional initiative whereby the people themselves can put up questions as well. The more questions that go to the people, the better chance we have of determining what the people want as their Constitution. Senator Robert Ray —Then you would never have to make a hard decision on which side of the chamber to go to. Senator MACKLIN —In terms of constitutional amendments it is very clear on which side the Australian Democrats have been. On every occasion that such a proposal has come before this chamber we have supported it, whether or not we believed that we would support the item in question in a campaign. The reason that we have supported such proposals is that we believe that if they are bought forward and argued in a serious fashion, they ought to go to the people for their determination. We have been consistently of that view for the past 10 years and certainly since these questions have been before us in the past eight years during which we have held the balance of power in this chamber. We will continue to do so with the next four propositions, to come in the next two or three weeks. I believe that this item is of fundamental importance. The people of this country ought to have a chance to express their view on it. The people having expressed their view, it will then be either enshrined or not, as the case may be, and that will determine what goes on. I was interested that one of the honourable senators who were interjecting a little while ago was a member of the Liberal Party. I would counsel him to discuss this matter with his colleagues in Queensland. Mr Innes made the very good comment, I thought, that his Federal colleagues had no idea of what this was like because they did not live in Queensland and that if they went up there he would be able to give them some instructions on the matter. In fact, I understand that he has asked people who do not agree with this proposal to stay out of Queensland, because he is campaigning for it, as is the rest of the Liberal Party in Queensland. I believe it is a crucial and very important decision that the Liberal Party in Queensland has made, because it means that the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the Democrats will be supporting this issue very strongly. A large number of citizens committees across the State will be supporting this issue, and it is certainly my view, and I know that of members of both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, that we should make Queensland the crucial State in relation to this proposal. It seems to me that the suggestion that is contained in both the majority and the minority reports that somehow the effluxion of time will solve the problem in Queensland does not really address the issue. As somebody said, we are not about to get a Steele Hall in Queensland; I can assure honourable senators of that. There are no wimps in the Queensland National Party; that was meant to be a derogatory, not a supportive, statement. In other words, it was suggested that principles are certainly not going to upset the hold of the National Party on power and it will stay there with as small a percentage as it can possibly organise which will deliver it the necessary seats. I believe that it is not possible to stand aside from those circumstances. I think it is entirely appropriate and reasonable to put to the people of this country the proposition of whether they wish to have State elections run on the various boundaries and other systems that are involved. I remind honourable senators who are opposing this proposition of the very important history that Australia has had concerning electoral and constitutional reform. We have introduced the Australian ballot, as it is known in the United States of America-a secret ballot-and the vote for women. We made important advances step by step in the early years. Coming from Queensland, I am particularly buoyed by the fact that in 1899 there was a very strong campaign in Queensland to try to get a No vote for the entire Constitution. One of the reasons for the advocacy of a No vote at that time was that the Constitution did not entrench equal suffrage. Senator Jenkins —It was a long time ago. Senator MACKLIN —We have indeed fallen from that high pinnacle of grace, but I and the many other people in Queensland who I know are committed to this line will do all that we can to put Queensland in that majority of States when the final votes come in on the tally night in September. Lastly, I would like to thank the Committee for the enormous amount of work that it undertook in looking at my Bill. I must admit that sometimes one feels somewhat guilty about these Bills going off to committee, particularly if it is a private member's Bill, because of the enormous amount of time that an investigation involves, even if a person involved in that process does not agree with an item in it. In looking at the Committee's report, one notes the dedication to detail contained in it. Knowing as I do the enormous task that any senator in this place has in just finding time to go to a committee meeting, let alone getting down to the serious work of deliberation, I am very conscious of the amount of work that honourable senators have put into this report. I must admit that that guilt is somewhat assuaged by the fact that they were dealing with what I think is a very important issue. I am thankful that members of that Committee support the principle of putting this issue to the people. I thank members for that work, for their dedication and for the very interesting report. I have not yet had a chance to read it totally in detail. I hope that the critical comments that I have made are not taken to mean that I am not appreciative of all the work that has been done. I believe that a great deal of material in the report will be very useful in the ensuing campaigns with regard to the Government's Bill. There are very little differences between the Government's Bill and the Bill that I introduced. There are some, of course. The Government has a starting date of 12 months, whereas I was leaving it to the High Court. The Government is seeking a number of other approaches; for example, the `as near as practicable' provision that I had in my Bill after the 10 per cent is not in the Government's Bill, but that is certainly in keeping with the Committee's report. I am particularly pleased to see that the Government has supported the notion of individual voters having the right to initiate legal challenges, rather than leaving it to the Attorneys-General. The Government's view differs from that of the Committee in some sense in supporting the provisions with regard to a fall-back situation. I suppose the reason for that is that, while it seems fairly clear that in its deliberations the Committee may not have liked the proposition, there did not seem to be too many other ways of getting around the problem when finally coming to draft the proposal. There must be a fall-back situation when drafting a non-compliance provision and it should be made as unpalatable and unattractive as possible. Senator Robert Ray —And it is. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Ray says that it is, and I am sure that probably Liberal Party senators would echo that sentiment. It is, and when I inserted it I was of the mind that it probably would be. Because it is unpalatable, it is something that the Commonwealth and the States would probably seek to avoid. The last point I wish to make on this matter-and this differs from the points made by Ralph Hunt in a series of comments that appeared in the Australian yesterday-is that the power that will be installed in the Constitution, if the Government's Bill is accepted by the people, is a power that in future would be held by the people and not held by politicians. It would not be held by politicians of this Parliament or of the State Parliaments. I would have thought that closer attention to detail would have been given in terms of the arguments against the proposed measures than to suggest that in fact the Commonwealth would not be bound by this exercise but that the States would be. That is patently false in relation to the text of the Bill itself. The Commonwealth would lose the power to do anything about changing its electoral law, as would the States. Certainly the High Court would be involved. I am not sure how one would install a power in the Constitution which is held by the people without giving the High Court original jurisdiction to deliberate on items. I am not quite sure what the minority group was actually even suggesting by the proposition that somehow or other one had to deal with the High Court. Of course, the High Court must be the final arbiter with regard to the Constitution or any constitutional items that may go to litigation. I do not believe that the High Court will be politicised, any more than it was politicised when it was dealing with Senator Wood, or any more than it is politicised when dealing with the interminable issues with regard to the Constitution, all of which are of high political moment. Indeed, my political party took a case to the High Court, which it lost, with regard to the counting of votes. Senator Robert Ray —Evans v. Crichton- Browne. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, a case that we lost. Again, it was a matter on which the High Court was required to deliberate. The judges will get no more tangled up in matters that happen to be matters of political moment than might somehow be the case with murder because they happen to be deliberating on a murder trial. The whole idea of having the judicial system is for them to adjudicate. It is the adjudication that is the important item here. I believe that the High Court judges are quite capable of adjudicating on these items without becoming caught up in the day-to-day political process which has not occurred in any of the other processes over the past 87 years of Federation. I recommend this report to those people who are interested in this item. I am sure that the report will be widely read, appropriate as it is, during the next three or four months campaigning that will be necessary with regard to this Bill. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(9.00) —I rise to speak briefly on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. First, I must say that it was a considerable pleasure to be asked by my Party to nominate to serve on this Joint Parliamentary Committee. I also pay tribute to the work done by the now Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, as Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I believe that in many ways the groundwork for the standing of this Joint Standing Committee and for the work it is now doing was laid in the previous parliament by the excellent contribution of Senator Robert Ray. I am also pleased to speak in this debate because I come from a State that I think set the trend for the achievement of one vote one value in Australia or fair and equitable elections. When I joined the Australian Labor Party in 1965 in South Australia, the Labor Party won the election that year after 33 years in opposition, with a two-party preferred vote of 57 per cent, and we won narrowly by two seats. In 1968, we still got a two-party preferred vote of 56 per cent but we lost the election because a handful of votes changed in two small rural electorates. In first preference terms, the Liberal Party of Australia got only about 41 per cent of the vote. As a person in my early twenties just joining the Party and becoming active in politics, I do not think I have ever felt a greater sense of unfairness on election night than I felt in 1968 to have a government defeated, when clearly tens of thousands of South Australian citizens voted for the Labor Party to be the government only to have the election result stolen unfairly by a crook electoral system that had been operating in South Australia for over 30 years. I certainly have considerable pleasure in the fact that the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to be tabled should deal with the fundamental issue of one vote one value-fair elections. I believe that South Australians and, in fact, all Australians would have to pay tribute to a politician from South Australia who did more than anyone else to raise the agenda of political reform on fair elections-Don Dunstan. Through the late 1960s and early 1970s, when I was first active in politics, Don Dunstan never let up whenever he had an opportunity to explain that we will not get fair, decent, honest government unless we have fair, decent, honest electoral boundaries. He made the point that the citizens will be ignored and there will be corrupt government if governments are elected by the minority of the people, whereby the party in government believes that at any time it can thumb its nose at the electorate because it knows that, despite what the majority votes, it will always be in government. That is the problem in Queensland today-after 30 years, there is a corrupt government. At present, in Queensland there is the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. It is bringing to light for the public the most bizarre circumstances of the Police Commissioner in Queensland saying in his diary that he has been discussing with politicians the redistribution of Queensland electoral boundaries. Senator Stone —When are you going to set up the same commission in South Australia? Senator SCHACHT —I inform Senator Stone that in any other State that Police Commissioner would be laughed out of the State and sent overseas. It is extraordinary that it could be acceptable behaviour that a police commissioner could have a direct say in the drawing up of electoral boundaries in any State. Senator Stone —Nobody is condoning that. Senator SCHACHT —I point out to Senator Stone that the reason that it occurs in Queensland is that the Government from the Party to which the honourable senator belongs has accepted that as a standard way of acting in a political sense because it knows that, come the next election, the malapportionment of boundaries will still put it back in office. The Government was elected, even though it received only 39 per cent of the vote in first preference terms at the last election. Senator Stone —The question that I put to you, Senator, is: When are you going to set up in South Australia the equivalent of the Fitzgerald Commission, and follow the excellent lead of the Queensland Government in doing so? Senator SCHACHT —I must say that, under any parallel observation, if the honourable senator is suggesting that the South Australian Police Force is as corrupt as that bunch in Queensland or that we have in South Australia Ministers who are into every type of take and bribe such as exists in Queensland-whether it be the present Labor Government or the Tonkin Liberal Government of 1979 to 1982-he is living in a fantasy world. I know that Senator Stone has a very difficult time in defending the absurd and corrupt behaviour of his parliamentary colleagues in the National Party in Queensland. However, he should not try to pull our legs by saying that other States are as bad as his; they are not. When Don Dunstan was campaigning for one vote one value, he made it quite clear that there was a need to have fair boundaries and the right of ordinary citizens to be able to get the government that they wanted. This sentiment is summed up in recommendation 1.14 of the report of the Joint Committee about the rights of the individual as against the rights of the Government. That recommendation states: the Federal Government has a clear responsibility to act to overcome this infringement- that is, the infringement of malapportionment- of the individual rights of Australian electors to have an equal say in choosing their governments and that the Federal Government therefore has a responsibility to introduce one vote, one value. I know that there was a dissenting report by four senators, including Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia senators. What an extraordinary dissenting report it is when it says: The proposal will not ensure fair and democratic elections. Whatever the deficiencies in one vote one value, they are minuscule compared with the deficiencies of malapportionment and gerrymander that exist in States such as Queensland. Whatever the deficiencies in one vote one value, by and large they will be overcome by appointing an independent electoral commission. In South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria independent electoral commissions have been established by legislation with clear sets of criteria for drawing up electoral boundaries on the basis of one vote one value with a 10 per cent tolerance. In each case the boundaries drawn have stood the test of time. When a majority of people have voted against the incumbent government of the day that government has been tossed out, whether the South Australian Labor Government in 1979, the South Australian Liberal Government in 1982 or the Unsworth Labor Government this year in New South Wales. When a clear majority of people have voted in two-party preferred terms-50 per cent plus one for one party-the fair electoral boundaries have delivered the government for which the majority voted. That does not happen in Queensland. It can happen by accident in Western Australia, although there is malapportionment in that State and, of course, the situation with the upper House in Tasmania is a bizarre example of non-electoral democracy. The report of the Joint Committee points out deficiencies; it does not hide them. There are some deficiencies theoretically about one vote one value, but where it has operated in Australia in recent times the people have got the government for which they have voted. I do not wish to talk for too long about Senator Macklin's Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987. I believe that some form of congratulation must go to Senator Macklin for introducing a private member's Bill. Other members of parliament have put forward proposals by way of private members' Bills. You Mr Acting Deputy President, had a proposal for one vote one value to overcome the problem in your home State. Many proposals have been talked about and Senator Macklin was one honourable senator who brought a proposal into this Parliament. However, the Joint Committee made it clear that, after thorough examination, it had decided that Senator Macklin's Bill was quite deficient. The reasons for that are exposed in the report and I will not go into detail. Certainly, Senator Macklin had great difficulty in trying to work out how all the details to ensure fair and equitable distribution of electoral boundaries can be included in the Constitution. First, he used the phrase `as near as practicable', and it was clear that that phrase could be open to an enormous number of definitions and interpretations. Senator Macklin then referred to a maximum of 10 per cent but, in trying to outline 10 per cent, he made a most convoluted proposal that, again, would have been a lawyer's delight, leading to argument before the High Court of Australia about exactly what it meant. By accident, it would have meant that on a number of occasions we would have had many elections at large in either the State or Federal sphere, and that would not have been in the interests of good government. This matter is referred to by the Committee in recommendation 1.24: It would be a backward step to introduce a voting system which would lead to the election of minority governments dependent on minor parties holding the balance of power in a lower House. That would be the result if there were elections at large under any system. There have been a couple of elections at large in the Western world, and one was in my own State of South Australia in 1901 when the boundaries were not drawn up in time for the first Federal election. So there was an election at large in that State before the proper party system was created and there were some unusual results. There was an even more classic case in the State of Illinois in the United States of America in 1968 when that State could not meet the requirements of the Supreme Court on one vote one value; so all 120 members of the House of Representatives of the State Parliament of Illinois had an election at large thrust on them at the very last moment. It was a first past the post system and it was an absolute nightmare for political parties, for candidates to know how many votes they required and so on. The Committee looked at this and found that it would be an intolerable burden. I note that Senator Coulter also accepted recommendation 1.24 about the difficulty in minority parties having a balance of power in the lower House and what that would obviously do to good and effective government. I will address a few remarks to the 10 per cent tolerance recommended in the report. Of course, this refers to the Government Bill for a referendum which is to come here from the other place. A 10 per cent tolerance is an effective and practical margin to allow for any electorate in Australia whether Federal, State or territorial. It is not beyond the wit of men and women these days with modern electoral enrolment to use a 10 per cent tolerance. As a State party secretary in South Australia I had the opportunity on a number of occasions to prepare the ALP submission to the independent Electoral Commission in that State using the 10 per cent tolerance. It is not difficult to have reasonably defined boundaries using appropriate geographical or topographical markings that are well known in the community to form a boundary. One of the arguments put here is that this does not overcome the problem of gerrymandering. Certainly in a theoretical sense gerrymandering cannot be stopped by having only a 10 per cent tolerance, but it is substantially and significantly reduced. I will cite a couple of examples, the first being in the 1970s in South Australia when I tried to draw up a redistribution proposal which gave a maximum number of seats to the Liberal Party based on voting patterns for that Party and another scenario giving a maximum number of seats to the Labor Party based on its voting patterns. I found for both scenarios that a boundary can certainly be fiddled in a particular area to give either the Liberal Party or Labor Party more of a margin in any particular seat. However, I quickly discovered that because of the overriding 10 per cent tolerance the domino falls down the map somewhere else and what either the Liberal Party or the ALP may gain in one corner of the city in trying to gerrymander it loses somewhere else. The overriding 10 per cent tolerance makes it extremely difficult to gerrymander in the classic sense of Governor Gerry in Massachusetts some 150 years ago, in the Queensland example with its zonal system under the present National Party Government or in South Australia under the zonal system that operated during the days of Sir Thomas Playford. Senator Michael Baume —His was with equal votes. You have just bombed your own arguments. Senator SCHACHT —It is extremely difficult to rig the boundaries in the sense of a gerrymander. As I said before, the practical test was in South Australia, where the Government changed twice, and also in New South Wales, under one vote one value provisions where a majority was obtained. The other thing that should be mentioned is that it is expected that independent commissioners will be appointed under the Act-an independent surveyor-general and an independent judge-unlike Queensland where a couple of cockies are selected from the National Party to be on an electoral boundaries commission to carry out the political instructions of the Premier of the day. So of course there will be gerrymandering. With those criteria laid down there will not be the problem of gerrymandering that we have complained about with malapportionment in Queensland. I think it is just sophistry by the Liberal Party to try to get itself off its own hook as to why it must oppose one vote one value. I look forward to the forthcoming campaign on the referendum in Australia. People like Mr Hall have made it quite clear that they support one vote one value, as do Mr Moore, the President of the Liberal Party in Queensland and front bench member, and Mr Innes. I look forward to strife within the Liberal Party as it tries to wriggle off the hook that it has put itself on in relation to this issue. The Liberal Party and its Leader made a fundamental mistake in that they tried to achieve coalition unity by opposing all the referendum questions, but in particular one vote one value, to appease the rednecks in the National Party. However, instead they have wrecked the unity within their own party. Mr Howard made a classic political mistake for which he will pay dearly over the next few months as he is exposed all around Australia on the issue of one vote one value and as he tries to explain why half his Party does not agree with his position or that of the National Party. In conclusion, I recommend the report. I believe that it will become a benchmark over the decades ahead for students in schools studying politics, the reasons for one vote one value and the reasons for fair and decent electoral systems. Like Senators Beahan, Macklin and Short I pay tribute to the staff of the Committee for the work they did, given the short notice they had to prepare this report. I think it is a lucid and precise exposition despite the fact that it contains a minority report. The majority position will stand the test of time and I commend it to the Senate. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.17) —I did not intend to speak to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report but some of the matters put to the Senate by Senator Schacht in particular I think simply cannot be allowed to pass without at least some brief comment. Indeed, I will also comment on some of the remarks made by Senator Macklin who unfortunately has left the chamber. I will begin by addressing some of the remarks of Senator Schacht who spent a lot of energy and emotion in dancing up and down about what he alleges to be the terrible state of affairs in respect of the Queensland electoral arrangements. Whatever may or may not be said against or in favour of those electoral arrangements we should be clear about one or two facts. One fact about which we should be quite clear is that as I understand it-and I base this on the work of political scientists such as Mr Malcolm Mackerras and Dr Dean Jaensch-under the present electoral arrangements in Queensland the Australian Labor Party (ALP) would need to win 51.4 per cent of the total vote in that State in order to gain a majority in the lower House. Senator Schacht —Surely they have to win 50 per cent plus one vote to win. Senator STONE —If Senator Schacht will contain his impatience I will respond to his intemperate interjection in a moment. I am developing my first point. In fact, the Queensland branch of the ALP has not come within a bull's roar of winning even 50 per cent of the vote. I think its highest vote for donkey's years has been something of the order of 42 per cent of the electorate; so what is all the fuss about? What are all the cries of pain from the ALP as to the adverse effects for that party under the voting arrangements in Queensland? I find it quite surprising and, indeed, interesting that the ALP should put itself forward as what appears to be the champion of the Liberal Party of Australia in Queensland. That appears to be the only possible logical explanation for taking up this issue. I think that we should be quite clear that that is what is at the root of the matter. We are talking about a situation in which government in Queensland could change if the ALP was up to the task of gaining 51.4 per cent of the vote in that State. That is the hallmark of the failure of the Australian Labor Party in the State of Queensland. Let us have that quite clearly on the record. Let us compare that situation for example with one which confronted the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia at the election held in New South Wales on 19 March last. At that election, the conservative parties needed 52.4 per cent of the vote-I will not answer for the decimal point-in order to gain a majority in the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales. They were up to the task of doing so when they routed the Unsworth Government in one of the greatest electoral landslides this country has ever seen. The conservative parties were up to the job of dealing with a gerrymander in New South Wales over which the previous Wran-Unsworth Government had presided and which had led to a situation where the conservative parties were required to retain 52.4 per cent of the vote. They were up to that task and they achieved it. Senator Michael Baume —It is only 51 per cent in Queensland, is it not? Senator STONE —In order to achieve the same result in Queensland, the Labor Party had to get 51.4 per cent of the vote. So what is all this wringing of hands by Senator Schacht all about? For the sake of completeness, I add that we are discussing these so-called one vote one value deliberations of the Committee report that we are considering against the background of a set of referendum proposals being brought forward by the present Labor Government in Canberra, one of which is the proposal in favour of so-called fair and democratic elections, unspecified. Yet this is being done by a party which is presiding over a situation where the conservative parties in this country will also have to obtain about 52.5 per cent of the vote at the next election in order to gain office. Those on the other side of this chamber and the other place are a bunch of hypocrites who accuse the Queensland National Party amongst others, but more generally the conservative parties-the Liberal and National parties; the Opposition parties in this place-of being against fairness and democracy in the electoral procedures. What nonsense! What absolute hypocrisy! Hopefully, we will not hear too much more of that from Senator Schacht, who, I notice, has now left the chamber. I want to make one or two brief remarks about Senator Macklin's speech, which was made a little while ago. In particular, Senator Macklin raised a point which I think requires a little calm reflection-not the kind of political speech that he made on the subject-on the role of the High Court in these matters. As Senator Macklin indicated when introducing his remarks on this subject, it is true that one of the objections which people on this side of the chamber have to the proposals brought forward by the Government in the four referendums Bills is that they will place a great deal more power in the hands of an unelected body of people who sit in that ghastly building near the lake to adjudicate upon what precisely is meant by certain words which, if these Bills were to be passed, would become part of our written Constitution and would then become justiciable-which, I think, is the word used by the lawyers, of whom I am not one. Senator Macklin went on to castigate those who he alleged were accusing the justices of our High Court of having become politicised. I say quite dispassionately that I am not aware of anyone, from our side of politics at least, who thinks about our High Court justices as being politicised. Senator Walsh —You know Barwick's letter of resignation was dated 1974, with the ink still wet in 1981. Senator STONE —Judging by the momentary and intemperate interjection of Senator Walsh, there appear to be some honourable senators on the other side of this chamber who are prone to that kind of ill-judged accusation. Nevertheless, let me go on; I refuse to be diverted in that way. What is at the heart of the disquiet-I even go so far as to say increasing disquiet-on the part of many sober, objective, detached and dispassionate observers of our judicial scene in Australia today is a feeling that what we now have is a High Court composed of people with a highly centralist view of the way in which government in Australia should operate. That is not the same as a politicised view and it is not the same as suggesting political attachment, affiliation or anything of that kind. It is a view which purports to attach a certain view of the way in which things are best done within our Commonwealth. Of course, the opposite view is what one might call the decentralist view, the devolutionist view, or what used to be called the federalist view-and that is still a very respectable title for that view. What has led to what I believe to be the increasing disquiet on this matter has been a whole series of judicial developments within the decisions of the High Court flowing over the course of the past, let us say, 10 years or so-I do not want to be too precise about it. First of all we had the extraordinary-perhaps even stronger words might be justified-development of the interpretation of the external affairs power of the Constitution. When we went to school or wherever we learnt anything at all about the Constitution, we had a view about the external affairs power. The Commonwealth had that power which enabled it to enter into external affairs policy questions and other matters of that kind. We have seen the development of a series of cases in the High Court over the past decade or so in this matter which has meant a total rewriting of that normally conceived view of the external power with which we all grew up. The most notable-and I would almost say notorious-case of that kind was, of course, the Franklin dams case. I do not want to spend time on particular cases, but I simply want to remark that as a consequence of this we now have a situation where if the government of the day-it could be a government of any political persuasion-were to seek to bend the external affairs power to its will in order to get its own way on some particular matter, then, given a certain lead time in order to allow it to undertake the necessary international negotiations and find an appropriate country with which to make a treaty about an appropriate subject, it would be able to do so. In addition, we have had the development of the corporations power, starting with, if I recall correctly, the Rocla Pipes case years ago when I was still in the Federal Treasury-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Stone, we are debating a report which was brought down on electoral matters, so I hope you will tie some of your comments, however interesting they may be, to that report. Senator STONE —I will certainly try to do that, Mr Acting Deputy President, if for no other reason than out of respect for your presence in the chair. I had hoped that I had begun to do so by my initial reference to the fact that I was commenting on the remarks made earlier in the debate this evening by Senator Macklin when he was referring to what he called the views of people on this side of the chamber about the politicisation of the High Court and its possible role, in an interpretative sense, in relation to the one vote one value referendum. I hope that I can continue to cleave to that line of discussion. Recently the High Court made an extraordinary decision-one might say that it was almost revolutionary-in relation to section 92, the so-called interstate trade and commerce power, which, if I recall correctly, is supposed to be absolutely free. Those are the exact words-`absolutely free'. While I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that the High Court's recent decision in that matter has totally reversed everything which most people thought they knew about the interpretation of that power for the past 50 or 60 years. Moreover, that decision was not made on the basis of some narrow majority, as I think the original external affairs power decision might have been made, but on the basis of unanimity on the part of the Bench. The Bench has suddenly turned round 180 degrees and charged off in the opposite direction in relation to section 92. It is those centralist notions to which, I repeat, people of goodwill in the community are directing their attention when they are expressing a sense of disquiet-I would add, a growing disquiet-about the trend and tendency of decisions emanating from the highest court in our land. It is that disquiet which has given rise to the concern of many people on our side of politics when they confront the prospect of four referendum Bills, one of which is the one vote one value Bill which is the subject of the report before us tonight, which, should they be approved at what I take it will be the forthcoming referendum, will write into our Constitution more words to be interpreted in the future by bodies of unelected people sitting on the Bench of our High Court. That is a prospect which begins to fill people with increasing dismay, particularly when one comes to matters such as-this is not so much the one vote one value area-the freedom of religion and so on. The one vote one value matter cannot be separated, in this context at least, from the referendum proposal which is currently before the House of Representatives and which no doubt will come into this chamber next week. Therefore, it must be considered in the context of the three other proposals. The fact of the matter is that the Australian Labor Party is in trouble. It has had a smashing defeat in the New South Wales elections and a series of by-election defeats. Australia's balance of payments is in a mess. Only last Thursday the Treasurer (Mr Keating) confessed at the Premiers Conference, for the first time, that the improvement in the balance of payments this year was fortuitous-that is his word which I quote-that the inflation rate was beginning to rise again and, therefore, put a cat among the trade union pigeons whom he had been so carefully stroking for some time. Senator Coulter —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: The honourable senator's remarks are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the report One Vote, One Value which is before us. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Yes, I uphold the point of order. I ask Senator Stone to make his remarks relevant to the report we are discussing. Senator STONE —Mr Acting Deputy President, I will do my best to adhere to your ruling. I continue from the point I was making before Senator Coulter so kindly reminded me that one must not stray quite so far from the accepted canons of debate. We are to have a referendum on the one vote one value principle, in addition to three other referendums, because the Labor Party is in trouble. When the Labor Party is in trouble it seeks a major political diversion. That is one reason why we are having these referenda without even having the courtesy to wait for the report of the Constitutional Commission which this Government set up, I think in December 1985, and which has spent something like $6m of taxpayers' money-I might say that a good deal of that was spent on what might properly be called propaganda, not on what might be called the proper work of the Commission itself-and, therefore, why the Bills were introduced in haste. A special session of the House of Representatives was called for Tuesday of last week in order to introduce the Bills there so that we might just sneak them through in the current parliamentary session. It is said that we will have a referendum on the one vote one value Bill and its three associated Bills very early in September. Generally speaking, what we have is not a genuine attempt to reform this country's Constitution-that is the last thing in the Labor Party's mind-but a political exercise. That is why we have the one vote one value proposal and the so-called four-year parliament proposal-although it is much more than that; it is another piece of centralism-associated with these other two apparently attractive proposals of the so-called recognition of local government. Recognition is right-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Stone, you are straying. Senator STONE —I accept that I am straying, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will certainly cease to stray very shortly. Senator Walsh —About time. You should do it right now. Senator STONE —As Senator Walsh says quite properly, I shall do so right now. I fully accept his view of the matter. We are to have these referenda, including the one vote one value referendum, which is the subject of the Committee report which is before us tonight, in order to provide a political diversion. That is why we will have this waste of $40m of taxpayers' money at a time when the State governments had $650m cut from the funds otherwise provided by the Commonwealth Government. I conclude by repeating that in the forthcoming referendum campaigns, when Labor Party spokesmen talk about the one vote one value referendum in particular, I hope they will keep in mind one or two of the statistics that I cited at the beginning of my remarks in response to Senator Schacht. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.38) —As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I endorse what has been said by Senator Beahan, Senator Short and other members of the Committee about the nature of the report One Vote, One Value and its value. It emerged after a considerable number of submissions were made to the Committee, after the evidence had been sifted and after a great deal of work was performed by the Chairman, Mr Lee, and other members of the Committee and by the staff of the Committee. It is a document, as has been indicated, which will be worth while for persons interested in this subject to have on their library shelves and to study. I must say that, although I was present for most, if not all, of the hearings on this reference, because of the burdens of another committee, which shall remain nameless, I was not able to be present for most of the private deliberations that took place on this Committee. Therefore, I do not include myself in my congratulatory remarks. However, I do observe that much of the debate that has taken place tonight has focused on the individual States of those honourable senators who have taken part in the debate. One would sense that there was a pervading atmosphere of State of Origin around the place tonight. I would suspect that, for example, if Senator Michael Baume were to call a quorum-I sincerely hope that he does not-the sense of State of Origin would prevail even outside this chamber. As a senator from the State of Tasmania I want to say something about the criterion of one vote one value. It will be observed by those honourable senators who have read the Committee report that on the criterion of one vote one value Tasmania's Legislative Assembly comes out best in the David-Eisenberg index for Australian legislatures. However, on the basis of that same criterion of one vote one value, Tasmania's Legislative Council comes out worst on that particular index. Honourable senators might thus ask why I signed the minority report. I did so because I indicated that for a fair electoral process which is designed in the interests of representative parliaments and governments the criterion of one vote one value is but one criterion to be considered amongst a whole range of others. Mr Acting Deputy President, I do not intend to transgress your ruling as to what those other criteria might be or to get into the question of referenda and so forth. However, I feel that it is necessary to point out that there are other factors which need to be taken into consideration, namely, the question of who is eligible to vote and what the population basis is for the electorate-whether it is to be based on the number of electors or the number of people in the electorate. That is a question that we have not faced. However, that is very important when we have to consider the question of one vote one value. We have to ask why electorates are not decided federally on the basis of how many people are in those electorates. Is the person who is elected to the Parliament to represent only the electors or is that person to represent every man, woman and child in that electorate? I feel very strongly about this question. I do not go to the extent of saying that the value of a person's vote should be equal to the number of people dependent on his or her wage. However, I do say that it would certainly smarten up a few people in regard to their family policies or otherwise if the electorate were based on the number of people rather than the number of voters. That is something that should be given mature consideration by the Parliament. I believe that it is conceded generally that there are other situations that the question of one vote one value does not address. It addresses only the question of malapportionment. It does not address the question of gerrymander. When considerations of gerrymander come into account then we must look at the question of community of interest. It is said that this is not a matter that is able to be taken into account at this stage. However, I think that if we are looking at the whole of this area perhaps it is something that ought to be taken into account. It was interesting to note that when we held public hearings in Queensland on the Macklin Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill, one of the complaints made by the Australian Labor Party-one of the major parties that came before us-was that legislation was rammed through the Legislative Assembly in Queensland. There was the complaint of procedures being followed in that House which made proper consideration of legislation quite difficult. Surely the answer to that is not one vote one value but to have a House of review, a legislative council or something like that. I am not suggesting that there should be more politicians. Far be it from me to suggest more politicians. Senator Walsh —There are far too many in Tasmania. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Walsh has interjected. It was Senator Walsh and his Government that proposed an increase in the number of Federal politicians by about 40. He wanted 40 more politicians. We are paying for it. I do not know how much that will eventually cost the taxpayers of this country but it will cost a mighty lot. However, if proper procedures and the ramming through of legislation are a problem, that is a matter for those procedures or for a House of review. It is not overcome by the institution of one vote one value. I make the qualifying statement here, although I have not written it in the minority report, that there is an argument for and I consider it desirable that in a legislature in which the Government is actually formed a greater emphasis should be placed on the criterion of one vote one value. I am concerned however that in my State of Tasmania if the principle of one vote one value were adopted for the Legislative Council certain people in isolated areas in the State with a firm community of interest would not have a politician representing them who also lived in that area. For example, if the seat of Gordon on the west coast of Tasmania, a clearly defined area of community interest, were to be placed into some other area because of the operation of the system of one vote one value, where would it go? Would it go east, over the mountains, or would it go north, to the north-west coast? One of the problems in Tasmania is rugged terrain and poor accessibility. That exercised my mind as well when giving this matter consideration. Substantial work has been done on this. I feel there will be a need for me to address a number of issues during the second reading and committee stage debates on the referendum Bills and I do not intend to say anything further on that. I would simply like to add one more comment. I believe we should acknowledge what Senator Macklin has done in this regard. I know when one has to develop a Bill such as this one needs to do an enormous amount of reading and devote an enormous amount of one's time to backgrounding oneself in order to prepare for debate. Consideration has to be given to the type of words that may be needed here or there to make the legislation accurate. Senator Macklin's work should be acknowledged because it is important that this issue of one vote one value be put on the table for discussion. Though Senator Macklin has given me and the rest of the Committee a fair bit of work to do, nevertheless his work should be given due acknowledgment. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.53) —The one vote one value proposal will not ensure fair and democratic elections. That is the essence of the minority report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters tabled today, and that is the issue that the Australian Labor Party simply will not face up to and continually ducks. Senator Walsh —What is the Liberal Party saying in Queensland, Patrick? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —There is the Minister for gutters again, who cannot properly address this chamber even by way of interjection without becoming offensive-or is it tired and emotional? This kind of interjection is typical. Whenever anyone in this place seeks to make a serious point about a serious issue the Minister for gutters continually interjects. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Baume, I did not pull you up the first time but I think that is a most inappropriate term to use. I am not asking you to withdraw it but I do ask you not to use that term again. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. If your suggestion encourages the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to keep quiet for a change and to contribute properly any serious points he may have, your involvement may be useful. I thank you for it. The reality is that the Labor Party has sought, dishonestly and dishonourably, to convey an impression that by pursuing this goal of one vote one value it will somehow magically generate fair elections. That is an absolute basic untruth. Senator Schacht, who mouthed this nonsense, knows that only too well. After all, Senator Schacht is the person who, on his own admission, was basically behind the preparation of Labor Party proposals for South Australian redistributions. Now I understand why on the average for the last five years South Australia has the most grossly unfair voting system of any State in Australia. We can discern that very simply by seeing what proportion of the votes is required for the other side to win. As Senator Harradine quite rightly said, the gerrymander effect relates not necessarily to one vote one value but to the way we design electorates. It is the design of electorates that creates gerrymanders, and we have heard from Senator Schacht's own mouth of his contribution to the gerrymander in South Australia. Over the last five years the index bias in South Australia has averaged 4.9 per cent. What is the average bias in Queensland over the past five years? It is 1.5 per cent-the lowest of any State apart from Tasmania, which has a different voting system. Queensland has the lowest bias factor of any of the mainland States and South Australia, where Senator Schacht contributes to the redistribution process, has the worst. So what sort of humbug, what sort of dishonesty, do we have in this chamber from the Labor Party? Senator Schacht also said that any deficiencies in other States are far less than those of the Queensland gerrymander. Yet South Australia has a system almost three times as biased, because of the design of its boundaries, as Queensland's. So let us examine what Senator Schacht is prepared to tell this chamber-and in so doing mislead it-about the reality of gerrymanders. He quite improperly suggested that gerrymanders can be reduced by reducing malapportionment. Malapportionment is what we have in Queensland, where there are electorates of vastly different sizes. But there is a major difference between having electorates of vastly different sizes and having a system, as Senator Stone said, which results in an unfair count at the end of the day. As Senator Schacht says, gerrymanders can be reduced by reducing malapportionment, but the reality is that they can also be increased by reducing malapportionment. In other words, malapportionment does not dictate in any way, and on the experience of Australian elections has no relationship with, the gerrymander factor in Australian elections both State and Federal. Of course Senator Schacht also misled the Parliament about Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who signed a Bill in 1811 creating new electoral districts to favour the Republican Party. I quote this from the report, which Senator Schacht obviously has not even read: One of the districts was in the shape of a salamander and as a result the term `gerrymander' was coined to refer to the drawing of electoral boundaries which ensured bias towards one party or person. In the report the diagram which illustrates what a gerrymander is all about uses exactly the same numbers of voters on either side and demonstrates that, even though the voters are equally divided between the two parties, the first figure shows that boundaries can be drawn to give three seats to the `X' group and one to the `O' group, while the other figure shows that this result can be completely reversed to give the `O' group three seats and the `X' group one seat. The essence of the gerrymander relates to the drawing of boundaries. That is why, when Senator Schacht promised to instruct the chamber on what was a gerrymander, he either did not know what he was talking about or deliberately set out to deceive the chamber. He did one or the other and he can have whichever he likes. The report says: While malapportionment may be removed by creating electorates with equal numbers of voters, electoral boundaries may still be drawn so as to advantage a party or person. A gerrymander may be achieved with entirely equal electorates, that is with equal numbers of voters in each electorate. Is that not quaint? That is from the report. But what does Mr Lee say in his tabling statement? He seeks once again to mislead the Parliament by claiming something totally different. He says: The Committee notes in its report that the achievement of one vote, one value does not stop the possibility of gerrymandering, but is a necessary first step for fair and democratic elections. That is utter bunkum. There is no defence of that proposition. In fact, the results of recent years show it to be totally false and I will illustrate that from the results of recent years in the States. For example, as I said, South Australia has the worst bias of any State as a result of the drawing of boundaries. A table which I have shows that in 1973 South Australia had a 9.3 per cent bias, in 1975 a 7 per cent bias, in 1977 a 9.3 per cent bias, and in 1979 magically only a 0.5 per cent bias. Of course, these biases were all in favour of the Australian Labor Party. Then there was a 5.5 per cent bias and an 8.2 per cent bias. If one takes the average over the last five elections one ends up with just under a 5 per cent bias as against a 1.5 per cent bias in Queensland. The bias in New South Wales in 1981 was 6.1 per cent. It is fascinating to note that in 1981, when New South Wales had an enormous 6.1 per cent bias, it was also the closest to one vote one value of any of the States of Australia or the Federal Parliament. Here we have a situation which clearly dramatises the historical reality that one vote one value led in 1981 to the worst case of electoral bias in Australia. This is what happened in New South Wales after, of course, a Labor redistribution. This is the consistent pattern throughout Australia that the Labor Party has created with the phoney approach which it maintains of one vote one value solving all of the problems with the democratic voting system. It has continually created the real and genuine gerrymander within that phoney environment-the one which in fact can and generally does take place within electorates of equal size. It is interesting to look at the other States. In Victoria there has been a 3.3 per cent bias over the last five elections-more than double that of Queensland. In New South Wales there has been a bias of 4.7 per cent, in South Australia 4.9 per cent, which as I said is the record, in Western Australia 3.5 per cent and in Australia as a whole 3.7 per cent. In New South Wales the Liberals had to get 52.4 per cent or so-in fact, on my figures it is 52.8 per cent-to win. There is disagreement about that, Senator Stone, but it is in the area of 52.4 to 52.8 per cent. The Liberals in South Australia need 52.2 per cent to win. Federally, the latest figure is that 52.5 per cent is needed to win. Yet here we have a situation where the Labor Party has sought to pretend that by approaching closer to the principle of one vote one value it has somehow saved democracy. It has saved democracy by in fact making the voting system more and more unfair. Quite frankly, I am of the view-and I have to say so-that I would prefer to see a fair system which did not incorporate gerrymanders but which got closer to one vote one value. I do not say that one should necessarily reach such an objective because, as Senator Harradine said, there are other factors which can well be taken into consideration. Senator Harradine made the sensible point that perhaps the system should be based on the people in the electorate and not necessarily on voters. Are not children being represented in this place? Perhaps that factor could be looked at. I believe that we face a real risk if we go along the track that this report sets out. If we allow voters in New South Wales to dictate to the voters in Western Australia or anywhere else how they should manage their affairs, I believe that we will be going down the track towards the sort of authoritarian dictatorial government that the socialists of this nation continually support. Here we have a situation in which the Labor Party wants the voters of New South Wales, who have had to suffer an average bias of 4.3 per cent, to dictate to the voters of Queensland, which has had an average bias of 1.5 per cent, and to say to them that somehow they should change their system more towards the New South Wales pattern. What absolute bunkum! Yet this is the sort of rubbish that we are going to hear over and over again in the next few months. Why should the voters of New South Wales have the right to dictate to Queens- landers or anyone else how they should conduct their election system? Quite frankly, if Queens- landers do not like their election system, they can vote against it. If Labor senators are silly enough to interject-- Senator Cook —A gerrymandered system. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Ah, Senator Cook is silly enough to interject. He has just led with what loosely can be described as a glass jaw. It was a `come in sucker'. I thank Senator Cook. The reality is that if the Queenslanders do not like it they can vote it out by 51.5 per cent of them on average voting against it. By comparison, 53 per cent of the people of New South Wales would have to vote against their system if they did not like it. But in Queensland, because the system in that State has a bias on average of only 1.5 per cent, a majority of far fewer people would be needed to change the Government. The reality is this: the people of Queensland have the democratic right to change their electoral system, which is far less biased than the one in New South Wales and certainly far less biased than the one that Senator Schacht has done his damnedest to create into the worst bias on average over the last five elections of any State in Australia. Senator Stone —You have to admit there is a very heavy price there-you have to vote Labor to do that. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Perhaps that would be a problem in Queensland. Maybe Senator Stone has just demolished the argument. But the reality is that if people in the States do not like their electoral system, the democratic and proper way to go about fixing it is to vote through their State elections to change it. What sanctimonious rubbish do we hear from the Government which is perpetuating a situation through the Senate? There is no one vote one value in the Senate. Maybe that is why many of the Labor Party people want to abolish the Senate. Obviously, the federal system incorporates the Senate arrangement under which a vote in Tasmania is worth far more than a vote in New South Wales. Is it not appalling that Senator Cook's vote in Western Australia is more important than mine in New South Wales? It carries more weight. Heaven knows why; it cannot be on an intellectual index. Present company on this side of the chamber is excepted from that remark. The reality is that this report endorses the concept of differential voting power. It says that the present Senate system should be maintained because this is a historical compromise. How can this historical compromise be acceptable when other historical compromises relating to other upper Houses in, say, Tasmania and Western Australia are somehow unacceptable when they have different values? The simple point that emerges is that there has been a smokescreen, an absolutely dishonourable attempt to create a phoney impression, firstly, that we will solve all problems relating to election fairness by having one vote one value, which is bunkum. The disgraceful conclusion of the majority report is as follows: . . . the Committee has concluded that the Federal Government has a clear responsibility to act to overcome what the Committee views- that should read, `the majority of the Committee views'- as an infringement of the individual rights of Australian electors to have an equal say in choosing their governments. I will not tolerate and would certainly vote against any Canberra politician or Canberra bureaucrat who sought to impose on me in my home State how I should vote and the system under which I should vote in my State elections. If I do not like the way the State elections of the New South Wales are run, I can vote Liberal, and I did. As a result of that election, the New South Wales electoral laws are to be fixed up. The Labor Party introduced the nonsensical optional preferential voting system which was aimed at destroying, unfairly and deliberately, the capacity of the coalition to oppose Labor candidates in Labor held seats. That, of course, was dishonourable and members of the Labor Party found, quaintly, that they were the biters bitten. The independents who stood in the coal seats in the areas of Newcastle and Wollongong on the south coast and so on, devastated the faction ridden, arrogant, out of touch Labor members of those areas. They have demonstrated that that optional preferential system can bite its parents. Senator Stone —The preferences did not flow. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Stone says, the preferences did not flow and Labor members were beaten in a magnificent landslide. That is the way to change a lousy electoral system-to vote the Government out. That is what has happened in New South Wales. That is why we are going to get rid of the ludicrous bias in New South Wales, where the average bias factor over the last five elections was 4.3 per cent, almost three times the Queensland electoral bias. I say to this House and to the Labor Party: if Labor continues to reveal the extent to which it is out of touch by trying to dictate to various States, particularly the smaller ones, how those States and their voters should conduct their electoral process-if it keeps trying to dictate from Canberra in its out of touch ivory tower in the way it has on almost every other issue-it will be doomed at the next election. If the people of Queensland and the people of Western Australia-which, by the way, has a bigger bias than Queensland-want to change their electoral system, all they have to do is follow the lead of New South Wales and vote out the authoritarian type governments which try to fiddle the electoral process by giving lip service to the principle of fairness by saying they support one vote one value and who then sneakily, through the back door, do what they can to ensure that the electoral boundaries are so ludicrous that it takes a major swing for those in opposition to achieve a minor victory. That is what this Labor Government is all about. This is a deliberate and dishonourable campaign to put up a smokescreen. God knows what the motives are. Senator Stone said that the Roman circus is trying to put on a diversion. I believe that it is more sinister than that. I believe this is part of the Labor Party's general pattern of doing what it can ultimately to destabilise and destroy the power of this Senate to be a genuine House of review. The Australian Democrats, who have a particular interest in this issue, should recognise the pattern of attack on this institution. We should remember at all times that, if it had not been for this institution, the ID card would have been passed into law-- Senator Stone —So would the Bill of Rights. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —And the so-called Bill of Rights would have passed into law. This Government will stop at nothing, I believe, to impose its authoritarian will on the people of Australia. It is now once again trying to impose on the people of the various States its view of how their elections should be conducted. Yet we know perfectly well from every bit of evidence that one vote one value does not guarantee fair and democratic elections. On the contrary, those Labor States where there is a much closer relationship to one vote one value than in other States have the biggest bias factor, because of the gerrymander of boundaries, of anywhere in Australia. Senator Cook —That is a ludicrous proposition. Labor has been in government in the House of Assembly in Western Australia but has never controlled the Legislative Council because of bias from the past. It is bias by the conservatives. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator Cook's only excuse is either that he came into the chamber too late to hear the realities of the figures from all the States which show South Australia as having the worst bias, or he has a curious inability to understand the simplest of English words-and I fear it is the latter. I fear that it is because of an inability to comprehend. It could, of course, be a deliberate attempt to mislead the Australian people, as he will try to do later no doubt. Senator Short —That is what the Government has been doing for months. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. Just as Senator Schacht came in here and deliberately set out to mislead us, so has Senator Cook, in the knowledge-because I have given it to him-that in the last five elections in South Australia the average bias as a result of a gerrymander was 4.9 per cent. In other words, those on the other side have to get that much more of a vote to get into power. Senator Cook knows that, yet he maintains the same dishonourable rubbish that we will hear throughout-- Senator Cook —Why do we support one vote one value and you oppose it? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —He supports one vote one value because in that way he can pretend that he is supporting the principle of fairer elections. We have seen from all the statistics not only that there is no correlation between one vote one value and a fair election but also that those Labor States which have been closer to one vote one value have had the most disgraceful and extreme unfair bias factors. I have given poor dear Senator Cook all the facts and he is still incapable of understanding them. That is his problem; but the people of Australia will understand them only too well. They understand the crooked way in which people like Senator Schacht in his previous role sought to influence the South Australian redistribution commission so that South Australia, on average, has the greatest bias in terms of electoral procedures of any State in Australia. I conclude simply by saying that we have heard from these two great intellects of the Labor Party, Senator Schacht and Senator Cook, a sort of microcosm, if you like, of the kind of rubbish that we will hear during the run-up to the referenda. We have heard that there will be no reliance on fact or analysis of history. We will simply hear the non-stop parrot-like and mindless repetition of advocacy of one vote one value, as if that is going to solve the problem. Senator Cook —Why do you oppose it? That is the democratic way: Why do you oppose it? Stop weaving and ducking and just say why you oppose it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The reality is that Senator Cook will mindlessly go on out in the electorate in the way that he has gone on here today. But I can assure Senator Cook that the people of Australia are capable of understanding the facts and the reality of the situation. The reality is, as the minority report says, that the one vote one value system does not ensure fair and democratic elections; in fact, in Labor States it almost ensures that there will not be fair and democratic elections. Of course, the genuine gerrymander, the one that Labor States are expert at, is in relation to adjusting the boundaries to maximise their vote and to make it harder, more biased and more difficult, for the will of the people to be expressed. Our aim is that the will of the people be properly expressed. We want the candidates who get just over 50 per cent of the votes to get just over 50 per cent of the seats. The Labor Party members are experts at the gerrymander, and one vote one value will not solve that problem. (Quorum formed) Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.24) —I wish to make only a few points in this debate, and I hope to be able to finish before we adjourn this evening. We have heard a lot of nonsense this evening from senators on both sides of the chamber. I refer first to the point that was made by Senator Michael Baume, and made earlier by Senator Stone, that somehow or other the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in relation to one vote one value had been brought up by the Labor Party because it is in trouble. The history of the development of this legislation goes back to the Whitlam years. Senator Macklin has introduced several Bills since 1985, and the Committee has now deliberated on his 1987 Bill. The report that we are now considering deals with that proposal. No-one could in any way maintain that for all that time either the Labor Party or the Liberal Party has been in the ascendancy. Senator Schacht, Senator Michael Baume and Senator Stone have argued a great deal about the impossibility of equal size electorates returning candidates for the party selected by the majority of the people. I would simply observe that unless we had multi-member electorates and proportional representation there is no way in which one could guarantee that result, as it is possible to show with quite simple mathematics that with single member electorates we need only a majority of people in a majority of the seats plus one-and that might be only 25 per cent of the overall electorate-or that number of people which is equal to the number of electors plus one, and that number might fall a great deal short of 50 per cent. I note in passing that, interestingly, the present Federal Government is proposing a method of proportional representation in the Australian Capital Territory, with the d'Hondt voting system, which in fact would involve a list system of election and prevent the electors in this Territory from electing the candidates directly, that is, by putting a number opposite the name of a candidate. Senator Stone also went on a great deal about the role of the High Court. I would point out to him that it was the minority report-that which came substantially from members of his own Party-that made the following point: . . . the Commonwealth Constitution will inevitably result in the High Court becoming involved in disputes over these issues. These disputes are invariably Party political in character. This will politicise the Court. That point was actually made by members of his own Party, in their minority report, and so I am not too sure exactly what point Senator Stone was trying to make in relation to the court becoming politicised. As to Senator Michael Baume's recent tirade, which went on for some 10 or 15 minutes, regarding the inequality between the States, one need only look at the second last table in the supplementary paper to see that in South Australia, in February 1988, the lowest enrolment was 16,909 and that the highest was 24,604-which is roughly a 50 per cent difference-whereas in Queensland the lowest enrolment was 8,256 and the highest was 25,398. That indicates the very gross difference which occurs between Queensland and South Australia in relation to the one vote one value system, which is the point of this report. Several speakers earlier indicated that I had not written a minority report. The reason I did not do so is that the majority report was substantially in line with the wishes that Senator Macklin had expressed. I think he has made the point himself that in relation to the words `as near as practicable' he was prepared to see those words go in support of the 10 per cent criterion. I make two final points. First, there is substantial legal opinion that the States of Australia do not have any existence separate from the Commonwealth at all. Indeed, the States were not States as such before Federation; they were colonies and they came into existence as States at Federation. That legal opinion would hold that the Commonwealth has full powers to assume any matter that it likes and that it is only the residual powers that lie with the States. My final point is that this matter is primarily about a referendum, about going to the people and ascertaining the will of the people on this matter. For anyone to suggest that the proposal is steamrolling the Australian public or a particular State or that it is jackbooting them on this matter, which is one of the terms that have been used, is absolutely ridiculous. The order of democratic process involves surely the whole of the people, then the Parliament, then the Government and then the Executive. Of course, the most democratic body that one can refer to is the people. This referendum is to take the matter to the people and to ask them to decide. Surely there is nothing undemocratic about that process. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 41) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 14 September 1987: (1) Could the Minister outline the facts surrounding the sacking of air traffic controllers in the United States at the instigation of President Reagan. (2) When did the sackings precisely occur; how many persons were removed from their positions; over what period. (3) What was the establishment of air traffic controllers prior to the sackings and what is it now. (4) What has been the effect of the sackings so far as safety is concerned in the United States domestic airline industry. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (4) I refer the honourable senator to the following reports of the investigations carried out by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Special Investigation Report `Air Traffic Control System' (NTSB-SIR-81-7, 8 December 1981) reported on the initial investigation of the system shortly after the Professional Air Traffic Controllers' Association declared themselves on strike; and Special Investigation Report `Followup Study of the United States Air Traffic Control System' (NTSB-SIR-83-01, 12 May 1983). I understand these reports are available through the Parliamentary Library. (Question No. 42) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 14 September 1987: (1) Is the Australian Government carefully monitoring the commercial airline industry in the United States following the privatisation of the industry, and the sacking of air traffic controllers at the instigation of President Reagan following an industrial dispute. (2) Is the Australian Government monitoring international aviation opinion following these two events; if so, what are its present findings or conclusions. (3) Is the Australian Government satisfied that it is safe for Australian citizens to fly over United States airspace to United States airports with safety. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The United States is a contracting State of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, as is Australia, and thereby undertakes to comply with the international safety standards of the Organisation. I have no reason to doubt that the US is adhering to those standards. (Question No. 43) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 14 September 1987: (1) Have any representations been made by the Australian Government to the United States Government regarding safety standards in United States airspace or at United States airports since the sacking of air traffic controllers, and privatisation of the American commercial airline industry; if so, what has been the response from the United States Government. (2) What on-going, day-to-day communications are in place between the Australian and United States governments on aviation safety systems as they exist between the two countries. (3) Are safety arrangements in place, and regularly monitored, dealing with all major airports in the United States and Australia. (4) What provisions are in place to revise and upgrade safety arrangements in airspace and at airports between the United States and Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) None that I am aware of. (2) As contracting States of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, Australia and the United States participate in a variety of technical meetings involving aviation safety systems. (3) Yes. (4) Regional meetings of ICAO are held regularly to discuss and update the Regional Air Navigation Plan. (Question No. 125) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) What is the average length of time that prisoners charged with Federal offences spend on remand before being brought to trial. (2) What is the maximum length of time that any prisoner has spent on remand before being brought to trial over the last 5 years. (3) What was the offence with which the prisoner referred to in (2) above was charged. (4) Where was the prisoner referred to in (2) above held. (5) Where are the centres throughout Australia in which prisoners on remand for Federal offences are held. (6) What is the average number of people held on remand for Federal offences for each of the last 5 years. (7) What is the average number of prisoners held at the centres named in (5) above at any one time. (8) Does the Federal Government regard the delay in bringing people to trial as acceptable. (9) What is the cause of the delay. (10) What steps are being taken by the Federal Government to rectify the situation. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (4) The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that the information sought by the honourable senator would require the manual examination of all relevant files for the past five years. The Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, and the Directors of Legal Services in Darwin and Adelaide do not maintain statistical records from which this information could be extracted. The information provided by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in the Australian Capital Territory does not distinguish between remandees held in respect of federal offences and those held in respect of Territory offences. It does not, therefore, assist in answering the honourable senator's question. However, so far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that as at 29 January 1988 only one person charged with a federal offence was on remand in custody. The Director of Legal Services in Hobart has advised that no person charged with a federal offence has been remanded in custody in Tasmania during the last 5 years. With respect to Tasmania, the answers are: (1) 0 days, (2) 0 days, (3) Not applicable (4) Not applicable. The monthly publication of the Australian Institute of Criminology entitled Australian Prison Trends provides statistics on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis for the number of prisoners on remand whether awaiting trial on sentence; the percentage of the prison population on remand; and the remand rate for the adult population. While these statistics do not identify those prisoners on remand in respect of federal offences, this publication may be of general interest to the honourable senator. (5) The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that adult persons on remand in custody for federal offences are held in the following State and Territory institutions. Australian Capital Territory-Belconnen Remand Centre. New South Wales-Federal offenders on remand in the Sydney area are usually held at the Metropolitan Remand Centre, Long Bay, although there is now a regular practice of holding some of these prisoners on remand at Parramatta Gaol. Elsewhere in New South Wales the practice is to hold prisoners on remand at the closest gaol (for example, Maitland, Goulburn, or Parramatta). However, the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services can transfer prisoners being held on remand to other prisons. Northern Territory-Berrimah Gaol (Darwin), Alice Springs Gaol. Queensland-Brisbane Prison Complex (South-East Queensland). Rockhampton Prison (Central Queensland). Townsville Prison (North and Far North Queensland). South Australia-Adelaide Remand Centre (Adelaide). Yatala Labour Prison (Adelaide). Port Augusta Gaol (Port Augusta). Mount Gambier Gaol (Mount Gambier). Victoria-Pentridge Gaol (Men). Fairlea Prison (Women). Western Australia-C W Campbell Remand Centre, Canning Vale (Perth). The Western Australian Department of Corrective Services has advised that all regional prisons have remand facilities. A federal offender arrested in a country area is likely to be remanded in the nearest country prison or remand centre. (6) The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been unable to provide this figure, except in relation to Tasmania where the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that no person charged with a federal offence has been remanded in custody during the last 5 years. (7) In the Australian Capital Territory, the daily average number of persons detained at the Belconnen Remand Centre over the 12 months to 31 December 1987 was 15. That figure includes federal, Australian Capital Territory and joint offenders. As the other institutions identified in answer to sub-question (5) are State and Northern Territory institutions, this is a matter for the State and Northern Territory authorities. The Attorney-General's Department does not have a record of this information. (8) In his Annual Report for 1986-87, the Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated that the delay in bringing persons charged with federal offences to trial in New South Wales is a matter of concern. I refer the honourable senator to pages 99-100 of that Report. (9) In his Annual Report for 1986-87, the Director of Public Prosecutions attributes the delays in New South Wales to the unavailability of courts and judicial officers; the length of hearings, particularly in drug importation and major fraud cases; and delays in the preparation of transcripts. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has also advised that defence applications for adjournment are a further source of delay in particular cases. In his Annual Report for 1986-87, the Director of Public Prosecutions points out that where the trial is likely to be delayed, judicial officers are more likely to grant bail to the accused. I refer the honourable senator once again to pages 99-100 of the Report. (10) Where delays in bringing persons accused of federal offences to trial occur as a result of the unavailability of courts, judicial officers or transcripts, these are matters for the State and Northern Territory Governments. In his Annual Report for 1986-87, the Director of Public Prosecutions indicates action taken by his Office to relieve the delays experienced in New South Wales in particular. I refer the honourable senator to page 100 of the Report where the Director states that `court rooms' have been provided at Westfield Towers and the American Express Building in Sydney, and that his Office has arranged for the preparation of unofficial transcripts from tape recorded evidence so that matters can proceed more expeditiously. (Question No. 181) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) What fringe benefits does Telecom Australia provide for all its employees? (2) What change to the profile of fringe benefits payable to Telecom employees has occurred following the application of the Fringe Benefits Tax? Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Telecom Australia does not provide any fringe benefits for all its employees. Fringe benefits, defined as those benefits which attract or which may attract liability for fringe benefits tax are, however, provided on a selective basis and include: Access to motor vehicles, provided principally as a ``tool of trade'', for out-of-hours private use primarily by executives and sales staff. Discounted expenses on housing, electricity, air conditioning and excess water rates for certain employees in isolated localities. Return holiday travel home for employees and families in isolated localities. Drivers licence fees to certain eligible staff. Prizes awarded to members of the sales staff as a result of sales competitions. Official Telephone services provided to staff members who are required by their position to make use of the telephone out of working hours. Concessional telephone call rates which become available to staff after 5 years service. (2) None. (Question No. 225) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Defence has employed 203 apprentices since 1 January 1988. (2) There have been no apprentices employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) and (4) The following table provides a breakdown of the number of apprentices employed by the Department since 1 January 1988 in their respective trades as well as the State or Territory in which they are located. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE Number of Apprentices by their Trade and State Classification ACT NSW Vic Qld SA WA Tas NT Total Apprentice Blacksmith ... . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 Apprentice Boilermaker ... . . 6 8 . . . . . . . . . . 14 Apprentice Carpenter ... . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 Apprentice Carpenter & Joiner ... . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Apprentice Electrical Fitter ... . . 23 4 . . 10 . . . . . . 37 Apprentice Electrical Mechanic ... . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 2 Apprentice Fitter & Machinist ... . . 34 51 . . . . . . . . . . 85 Apprentice Fitter & Turner ... . . . . 2 . . 5 . . . . . . 7 Apprentice Heat Treat. Tradesman ... . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 Apprentice Instrument Maker ... . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . 2 Apprentice Metal Tradesman ... . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . 3 Apprentice Refrigerator Mechanic ... . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Apprentice Radio Tradesman ... . . 5 . . . . 1 . . . . . . 6 Apprentice Sheetmetal Worker ... . . 6 1 . . . . . . . . . . 7 Apprentice Shipwright ... . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Apprentice Welder ... . . 6 2 . . . . . . . . . . 8 Apprentice Wood Machinist ... . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . 2 Apprentice 1st Class Machinist ... . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . 18 Apprentice Mechanical Fitter ... . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Apprentice Plumber ... . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Apprentice Non-Metal .5Y ... . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 1 Total ... . . 90 96 . . 17 . . . . . . 203 (Question No. 226) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) None (2) None (3) Not applicable (4) Not applicable (Question No. 242) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There are 793 employees of the Department of Employment, Education and Training who are presently listed as unattached. This figure includes staff who are on approved work placements with other departments or organisations, are engaged in full-time study or staff development courses, or are on leave (eg maternity leave, leave without pay) as well as officers who are working in the Department but who do not hold a substantive position. (Question No. 251) Senator Maguire asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: (1) What was the total number of domestic passengers carried by airlines in (a) the United States of America; (b) Canada; and (c) Australia, in 1985 and in 1986. (2) How do the domestic passenger numbers provided in (1) (a), (b) and (c), above, compare with the total population of the 3 countries in per capita terms. (3) Do the figures in (2) above suggest a higher usage of airline services on a per capita basis in one country compared with the others. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) There were 370.1 million domestic passengers carried on scheduled passenger services in the United States in 1985 and 404.7 million passengers in 1986. (b) There were 19.6 million domestic air passengers in 1985 and 20.6 million passengers in 1986 carried on scheduled services in Canada. (c) There were 11.7 million passengers in 1985 and 12.3 million passengers in 1986 carried on scheduled domestic airline services in Australia. It should be noted that these figures are not strictly comparable as each country adopts different definitions in preparing its airline passenger statistics. Also, the United States data refers to fiscal year, 1 October-30 September, whereas the Canadian and Australian statistics are for calendar years. (2) (a) In the USA on a per capita basis, the number of domestic airline trips averaged 1.6 in 1985 and 1.7 in 1986. (b) In Canada, on a per capita basis the number of domestic airline trips averaged 0.8 in 1985 and 1986. (c) In Australia on, a per capita basis, the number of domestic airline trips averaged 0.7 in 1985 and 0.8 1986. (3) The above statistics do suggest a higher usage of airline services on a per capita basis in the United States than in Canada and Australia. (Question No. 271) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 March 1988: (1) What consultants have been engaged by the Public Service Commission to carry out consultancy work during the calendar year 1987 under each of the Public Service provisions that enable engagement of outside assistance/advise. (2) For what purpose was each consultant engaged. (3) What was the payment to each consultant. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer, based on advice from the Public Service Commission, to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3)- Consultant No. of days engaged Purpose Payment $ Executive Development Scheme Graham Bassett (CORE Consultancy) ... 1 Presentation of coursework ... 950 Elinor Drake (CORE Consultancy) 1 Presentation of coursework ... 950 John Hill ... 1 Presentation of coursework ... 800 Sharon Lester (Health Promotion Programs) ... 8hrs Delivery of health & fitness programs 360 Bill Nicol (Communication Concepts) ... 3 Preparation, presentation and delivery of coursework ... 3 000 John Gunn (Communication Concepts 1 Coursework presentation and materials ... 1 086 Kayt Raymond ... 2 Coursework planning, preparation and presentation ... 1 700 John Martin ... 2 Presentation and preparation of coursework, payment of assistant, supply of equipment for coursework ... 2 700 Roy Gilbert ... 1 Presentation of coursework ... 980 Roy Gilbert ... 1.5 Coursework presentation ... 1 350 Peter Timmins (Political Reference Service ... 1 Preparation and presentation of coursework ... 1 800 Phill Boas (Precision Communication) 5 Coursework presentation ... 4 500 Phill Boas (Precision Communication) 2hr Preparation and planning of coursework ... 1 800 Phill Boas (Precision Communication) 1 hr Planning coursework ... 100 Phill Boas (Precision Communication) 25 Coursework presentation ... 22 500 Phill Boas (Precision Communication) 1 Planning of coursework ... 900 John McMillan ... 1 Preparation and presentation of coursework ... 700 Glenda Cloughley (The Change Agency) 2 Preparation, presentation and supply of materials at coursework ... 1 744 Glenda Cloughley (The Change Agency) 2 Coursework presentation ... 1 500 Glenda Cloughley (The Change Agency) 1.5 Development of case study material ... 1 100 Glenda Cloughley (The Change Agency) 5 Publicity and case study materials ... 5 000 Pat Weller ... 2 Development and delivery of coursework ... 2 100 P A Collings & Ass (P A Collings, Kevin Cox & Rick Jentsch) ... 2 Delivery of coursework and provision of materials ... 2 800 Jeremy Chance (Fyncot Pty Ltd) ... 2 Delivery of coursework ... 1 500 Andy Stoeckel ... 1 Presentation of coursework ... 500 Maxine Fern ... 1 hr Planning coursework ... 100 Maxine Fern ... 24 Coursework presentation ... 19 200 CORE Consulting Services ... 0.5 Coursework design ... 450 Alf Lizzio (CORE Consulting) ... 5 Case Study materials ... 4 500 Dr G Patz ... 10 Cast Study materials ... 10 000 The National Heart Foundation ... 2 Health testing ... 600 Paul Kelly ... 0.5 Coursework presentation ... 350 Burson & Marsteller (A Little, S Harris, P Adams & J Butler) ... 37 Development, preparation and presentation of coursework package ... 35 000 Branch Staff Development Margaret Visbord ... 1 Coursework presentation ... 1 500 Administrative Trainee Scheme Communication Concepts (Bill Nicol/John Gunn) ... 3 Preparation and development and presentation of coursework ... 5 000 Roy Gilbert ... 2 Coursework presentation ... 2 000 Maxine Fern ... 2 Coursework presentation ... 1 500 Maxine Fern ... 2 Coursework presentation ... 1 500 Maxine Fern ... 2 Coursework presentation ... 1 500 Maxine Fern ... 2 Coursework presentation ... 1 500 John McMillan ... 1 Coursework presentation ... 700 Peter Timmins (Political Reference Service) ... 3 Coursework presentation ... 3 260 Peter Timmins (Political Reference Service) ... 1 Coursework presentation ... 1 600 Maxine Fern ... 2 Coursework presentation ... 1 500 John McMillan ... 1 Coursework presentation ... 700 Peter Timmins (Political Reference Service) ... 3 Coursework presentation ... 3 260 Peter Timmins (Political Reference Service) ... 1 Coursework presentation ... 1 600 Claire Burton ... 1 Coursework presentation and materials ... 600 Annie Lang (Lang, Sheldon & Assoc) 2 Interviews for evaluation ... 1 500 Amanda Little (Burson & Marsteller) 50 hrs Planning and preparation of script for coursework exercise ... 5 000 Alf Lizzio (CORE Consulting) ... 2 Coursework presentation ... 2 200 Phill Boas (Precision Communication) 2 Coursework presentation ... 1 800 (Question No. 276) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 23 March 1988: (1) Can the Minister advise the number of agricultural export transactions carried out by the United States (US) since October 1986 which have relied on subsidies from the United States Treasury (such as the Export Enhancement Program) to secure contracts. (2) Can the Minister identify (a) the commodities involved in each transaction; (b) the market in which that commodity was disposed of; (c) the value of each transaction; and (d) the amount of subsidy provided by the American Government in each transaction. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided an answer to the honourable senator's question. [The answer is too lengthy to be published in Hansard. Copies are available at the Senate Table Office.] (Question No. 281) Senator Burns asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 March 1988: (1) Are Aviation Group employees of the Department of Transport and Communications required to travel by departmental aircraft when on departmental business. (2) Is there a standard of air travel specified for Public Service travel; if so, do departmental aircraft meet this standard. (3) What is the department's liability to staff should injury or death occur from an accident whilst travelling on departmental aircraft. (4) How does this liability compare with that imposed on normal commercial air travel. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The majority of travel by departmental officers when on official duty, both domestic and international, is by commercial carrier. However, some officers are required to travel by departmental aircraft a) as part of their duties e.g. staff engaged in the operation of the aircraft, pilots who are required to maintain proficiency ratings, and b) occasionally some staff travelling on duty where it is considered the most economical mode of travel. (2) Yes. Departmental aircraft are maintained and operated at the same technical standard as commercial aircraft. Passenger comfort and in-flight service, while considered adequate, are not of the same standard offered by the commercial operators given that the primary function of these aircraft is to calibrate navigational aids. (3) The maximum liability of the Commonwealth in respect of any one staff member for death or injury resulting from an accident while on duty is $57780 as provided by the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1976. This may be overridden in relation to an accident involving departmental aircraft by the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Act 1963 which imposes a maximum liability of $100,000 (for interstate travel-the respective States have similar legislation in place for intrastate travel). (4) This liability is similar to that imposed on normal commercial air travel by the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 which also provides maximum liability of $100,000 in the event of death or injury to a passenger.