Monday, 23 May 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is with regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 20 May 1988, of former Senator Clement Frank Ridley, Senator for the State of South Australia from 1959 to 1971. 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 20 May 1988, of Clement Frank Ridley, senator for the State of South Australia from 1959 to 1971, and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service. Clement Ridley was a strong supporter of the principles of the Labor and union movement. He concentrated on industrial relations during his 12 years as a senator. He was a Federal President of the Vehicle Builders Employees Union, President of the Trades and Labor Council of South Australia and a South Australian delegate to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He was also a State Australian Labor Party President. His contribution to the Parliament included being a Temporary Chairman of Committees, a member of the Printing Committee and a member of the Australian delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1965. Although it is 17 years since Senator Ridley departed from the Senate, I am sure all honourable senators will join with me in regretting the passing of an active parliamentarian. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I wish to support the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). Clearly Mr Ridley gave signal service to his State and to the Senate. I note that he is another deceased Labor member of parliament who came from the traditional source of members of this place. He was a a skilled tradesman, of whom there are still a few in the Senate. I think Senator Childs is one-- Senator Tate —And Senator Devereux. Senator CHANEY —And Senator Devereux, yes. There are still a few of that honoured group in the Parliament, and I welcome that fact, and I support the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his comments about the late Senator Ridley. Death of Former Senator Ridley Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I would like to add support to this motion. Clem Ridley was a senator, as was mentioned, from South Australia from 1959 until 1971. During that time he served South Australia with distinction. Although the Senate at that time was structured slightly differently from what it is today, in that committees as they are constituted today did not exist, Clem was an active and involved member of the Caucus manpower committee, as it was then known, or as it would be known today, the economic and industrial relations committee. His work on that committee stemmed from his trade union background. Until he came into this place Clem Ridley was Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Union of Australia. In fact he was Federal President of the VBE as well as serving as State President of the South Australian branch of the Trades and Labor Council, as was mentioned by Senator Button. He was also the President of the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party. Clem Ridley was also a strong supporter of the trade union movement. He used this place to raise important issues that today we take for granted. I make these remarks here today not only on my behalf but also on behalf of my South Australian Senate colleagues and those of Clem Ridley. Time will mourn his passing. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable President and senators in the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners, 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 ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 68 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of the War Veterans' community and concerned citizens respectfully showeth: That there has been continuous, substantial and damaging erosion of war veterans' benefits and services since May of 1985 in a very wide range of areas; That it is cruel and cynical of the Government to treat war veterans, many of whom are now advanced in age, in declining health and vulnerable, as expendable and unworthy of optimum care and benefits, when they and their comrades gave of their utmost to this country in its times of greatest need; Now, therefore your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled pass appropriate legislation to reverse the decisions of the Government which have brought about the erosion of war veterans' benefits and services. by Senator Jenkins (from 130 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers, about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. (3) Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X ray etc.). (4) Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 320 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. Constitutional protection for historical and environmental assets is needed. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution so that the Federal Government has the bounden constitutional duty, which any citizen may legally require it to perform and a right superior to state and local governments, to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore all we hold in trust for the future including relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance and to care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act nationally and internationally in any matter seen as related to these including to prevent military and commercial use of uranium and derivatives, beach and related mining; to preserve Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 21 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: Millions of dollars of taxpayers money is spent at each Federal election in Australia in the drafting, production and distribution of How-to-Vote cards which are unnecessary and pollutant and that this waste is not desirable or essential in assisting the electorate to vote informatively for their parliamentarians. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to introduce legislation which requires that the registered How-to-Vote cards of all political parties and candidates for political office must be placed under glass in every polling booth within obvious sight of all voters, thus making it unnecessary for How-to-Vote cards to be distributed at future federal elections. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 8 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 Constitution Alteration (Electors Initiative) Bill 1987 to alter the constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 23 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 179 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth: That while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will refer the above mentioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary Committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 172 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders or other Orders of the Senate, the hours of meeting of the Senate on Wednesday, 25 May 1988 be as follows: 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 7.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the revelation during the weekend 21-22 May 1988 in a report from Australia Post of multi-millions of dollars being wasted in vacant and under-utilised properties, much of it due to delays and incompetence by the Hawke Government's Department of Administrative Services (DAS); (b) further notes complaints by Australia Post to a recent Public Accounts Committee hearing that having to deal through DAS was costing Australia Post millions of dollars a year; and (c) calls on the Hawke Government to take action to stop this incompetence and waste, particularly in view of Australia Post's recent announcement that higher Government charges on it could force yet another increase in postal costs from 37c to 40c a letter, representing a 47 per cent price hike under the Hawke Government. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: 1. That the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 49 and made under the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940, be disallowed. 2. That the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment), as contained in Export Control Orders No. 3 of 1988 and made under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations, made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —These are protective notices on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. We are corresponding with Ministers about the Committee's concerns and we are hopeful that the matters will all be resolved satisfactorily. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement explaining our concerns. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 49 and made under the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 These Regulations prescribe certain educational schemes to which certain provisions of the Act apply to enable the recovery of overpayments of certain benefits. The power to make these Regulations appears in a Bill that has not yet passed the Parliament. The Regulations are to commence on the date that this Bill comes into force as an Act. The Committee is uncertain whether there is any other enabling power for these Regulations. If there is not the Regulations may be invalid. The Committee is seeking legal advice from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Ben Humphreys, M.P. Prescribed Goods (General) Orders As Amended (Amendment), as contained in Export (Control) Orders No. 3 of 1988, and made under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations, made under the Export Control Act 1982 These Orders provide for the Secretary, who has wide and numerous powers, to delegate to a Senior Executive Officer, power to delegate to an authorised officer, power to delegate to another authorised officer, power to take certain prima facie administrative decisions. Thus, the actual exercise of powers will, in practice, move a very long way indeed from their original recipient. The Committee has sought from the Minister for Resources, Senator the Hon. Peter Cook, his comments and advice on the reasons for this subdelegation arrangement. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109a, I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2, 3 and 6 standing in my name for five sitting days hence for disallowance of certain delegated legislation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short description of the scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. This will be available immediately for any honourable senator who wishes to read it. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Defence Determinations Nos 6 and 10 of 1988 The Committee sought the Minister's advice on whether legislative criteria existed in Determination No. 6 to guide the exercise of a particular discretion to pay certain allowances. The Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ralph Willis, M.P., pointed the Committee to the relevant criteria that existed in a clause of another Determination. The Committee also queried whether the expression ``according to the custom of the service'' was a sufficiently certain criterion for use in connection with a provision designed to identify officers who were empowered to grant certain leave or travel. The Committee agreed to accept the Minister's explanation that the use of the expression reflected a settled and well understood practice in all branches of the Defence Force. Rifle Clubs Firearms Order of 11 February 1988 A package of delegated legislation was designed both to terminate the involvement of the Defence Organisation in the establishment, administration and control of rifle clubs and associations. The legislation would also continue the exemptions which the clubs enjoyed from State and Territory gun and liquor laws, pending full transfer of the clubs to State and Territory jurisdictions. The Committee considered that since the delegated legislative package was intended by the Minister to be of a temporary nature only, then it should have been subject to an express sunset clause that would eventually have terminated temporary exemptions from State and Territory laws. In accordance with its Principles, the Committee had no interest in the policy behind the package. However, part of the package, namely the Australian Rifle Clubs Regulations (Repeal) (S.R. 1988 No. 17) was disallowed by the Senate on 10 May 1988 (Senate Hansard, page 2265) for policy reasons. In the light of this the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Kim Beazley, M.P., informed the Committee that although in principle he agreed to the insertion of sunset clauses into the remaining legislation, the disallowance of an important part of it would alter the practical situation by reviving earlier repealed Regulations. He considered that the matter would have to be reviewed in the light of such a factor and he agreed to write to the Committee again. In these circumstances the Committee, satisfied that the minister has accepted in principle the point of concern to it, has decided to withdraw its notice of motion of disallowance while the Minister reconsiders his position. Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1988 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 11 of 1988) The Committee was concerned about the presence of a strict liability offence in subsection 186a (2) of the Ordinance (``A person shall not remain in or upon a trailer or camper unit that is attached to a motor vehicle whilst the . . . vehicle is being driven . . .''). The Committee considered that the offence should only arise where there existed a deliberate intention to ride on the accessory rather than arise, for example, where a person was ``trapped'' on a trailer etc. when an unwitting or careless driver moved the vehicle. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P., agreed to amend the Ordinance to reflect this change. The Committee agreed with the Minister however, that the offence of actually driving such a vehicle could be in a different category since it was designed to impose upon the driver an obligation prior to driving to check that no one remained in or on the relevant accessory. Senator COLLINS —I seek leave to incorporate the Committee's correspondence in Hansard. Leave granted. The correspondence read as follows- THE SENATE PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 22 March 1988 The Hon. Ralph Willis, M.P. Minister for Industrial Relations Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 17 March 1988 the Committee considered Defence Determinations Nos. 6, 9 and 10 of 1988 (tabled in the Senate on 15 March 1988). The Committee seeks your advice about certain discretions and the meaning of certain expressions. Defence Determination No. 6 of 1988 New Clause 28 provides that a member of the defence force serving overseas who is absent from normal duty for various reasons and who leaves the locality of his or her overseas post ``shall, where the approving authority so approves in respect of so much of the period of . . . absence . . . that Overseas Living Allowance is not payable . . . be paid . . . Allowance . . . equal to'' a certain amount calculated in accordance with fixed criteria. Although initially expressed as an absolute entitlement, there is in fact no right to this allowance since it is to be granted in the discretion of the approving authority-``where the approving authority so approves''. There are no criteria set out from which a member might predict the way in which this discretion might be exercised. This lack of structure for decision-making contrasts with, for example, the way in which the approving authority must have regard to specified matters in clause 5 of Defence Determination No. 10 of 1988. The Committee raised with you a point somewhat similar to this when it scrutinised Defence Determination No. 46 of 1986 which has recently been amended to meet the Committee's concerns (Defence Determination No. 70 of 1987; and see your letter to the Committee of 24 February 1988). Perhaps you would be willing to re-examine new clause 28 in this latest Determination with a view to clarifying the circumstances in which the discretionary entitlement there referred to is likely to be granted. Defence Determinations Nos. 9 and 10 of 1988 Firstly, paragraph 3 (c) of Determination No. 9 and paragraph 3 (d) of Determination No. 10 refer somewhat enigmatically to ``Defence Regulation 8''. Since the explanatory statement does not advert to such a provision, perhaps you would indicate what this Regulation is. This would appear to be an adoption or incorporation of some other possibly legislative or possibly administrative rule. As you know the Committee has a practice of endeavouring to scrutinise any document which becomes legislative in nature by means of adoption or incorporation. Secondly, clause 2 of Determination No. 10 defines certain absence or travel as that ``approved by an officer who according to the custom of the Service is empowered to approve such'' absence or travel. The Committee is concerned that the expression ``according to the custom of the Service'' may be too vague and uncertain for use in a legislative instrument dealing with the entire defence force in its three traditional constituent elements. Although in toto comprising the Service these elements may each have relevant customary arrangements which cannot properly be described as ``the custom of the Service.'' The Committee would very much welcome your comments and advice on the technical points raised in this letter. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Senator Bob Collins Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 4 May 1988 Dear Bob I am writing in response to your letter of 22 March 1988 in which you seek advice regarding certain discretions in Determination No. 6 of 1988 and the meaning of certain expressions in Determination Nos. 9 and 10 of 1988. Your query regarding Determination No. 6 of 1988 concerned the apparent lack of criteria in new clause 28 of Determination 3714, Overseas Living Allowance, to which the approving authority must have regard when making a decision to approve payment of the allowance. In this case, it was not necessary to include those criteria as they remain unchanged from the matters contained in clause 29 of Determination 3714 about which the approving authority must be satisfied. With reference to the expression ``Defence Regulation 8'' in Determination Nos. 9 and 10 of 1988, I must apologise and advise that this should read ``Defence Force Regulation 8''. It has been noted that the same error has occurred in Determination No. 2 of 1988. All three determinations introduced new allowances and were drafted at the same time. The three determinations raised the problem of corresponding ranks and the faulty expression was used in each determination. Action is underway to correct the errors promptly. The expression ``according to the custom of the Service'' was used in clause 2 of Determination No. 10 of 1988 (and has been used previously in determinations) because the process of approving leave or travel is an administrative practice which clearly identifies the kind of absence or leave travel relevant to this entitlement. While the appointment or position of the officer designated may vary between Services, and even within a Service, the practice referred to is a settled and well understood one with, I believe, no possibility of doubt arising as to what the custom is in all situations in each of the Services. Yours sincerely Ralph Willis PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 24 March 1988 The Hon. Kim Beazley, m.p. Minister for Defence Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 17 March 1988, the Committee considered the recently made legislative instruments relating to the administration and control of rifle clubs and associations namely, the Defence (General) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1988 No. 18); the Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order (published in Gazette No. S 56 of 25 February 1988); and the Rifle Clubs Firearms Order (Amendment) (published in Gazette No. S 66 of 14 March 1988). Each of these instruments was tabled in the Senate on 15 March 1988. The Committee is concerned about some technical aspects of this subordinate law package. Firstly, the Committee has noted that the enabling power behind the two Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Orders is to be found in section 123g of the Defence Act 1903. Subsection 123g (1) provides that the Minister may make Orders ``for and in relation to the control and administration of rifle ranges''. Subsection 123g (2) provides that ``without limiting the generality of subsection (1) Orders may be made for or in relation to'' various matters, including ``(c) the regulation or prohibition of the carriage, possession or use of firearms on, or in connection with, a rifle range''. Paragraph 4 of the Order provides that the Order ``applies in relation to firearms owned by members''. Paragraph 5 provides that- It shall not be necessary for a member [of a rifle club affiliated with the National Rifle Association of Australia or the Australian Small Bore and Air Rifle Association] under or by reason of any law of a State or Territory to obtain or have any licence of permission for: (a) the use of a firearm on a rifle range during a meeting organised by a club at that range for the purpose of competition or practice; (b) the carriage of a firearm so used to and from the rifle range and its place of storage; and (c) the possession of such firearm, provided it is kept in secure storage. At first sight this appears to amount to an exemption of club members from the firearms control legislation currently operating in Australia. The Committee acknowledges that subsection 123g (5) of the Act provides that Orders are to ``have effect notwithstanding any provision of a law of a State or Territory''. The Committee also acknowledges that subsection 123g (6) provides that subsection (5) is not intended to affect the operation of other laws to the extent that they are capable of operating concurrently with the Orders. It would appear therefore, that a club member may own any number of manual, automatic or semi-automatic firearms which need not be licensed provided every aspect of their use and carriage is related to the rifle range, and provided the armaments are kept ``in secure storage''. The Committee has serious worries about how such a scheme for the control of gun ownership and use can be policed effectively in the interests of public safety. Granted that the exemption applies only to members of the relevant gun clubs. Granted also that paragraph 3 of the Order provides that ``except to the extent of its explicit provision, this Order is not intended to affect the rules and safety procedures of clubs''. Nevertheless the apparent suspension of gun control laws appears on its face to be so sweeping and so fraught with potential for the break down of control mechanisms that the Committee seeks your expert advice on the following matters- (i) the nature and details of the controls over club members' guns prior to the making of the Order; (ii) the nature of the practical effects which the Order will have on those mechanisms for control; and (iii) whether paragraph 5 of the Order is so wide in its scope that it is beyond the Order-making powers in paragraph 123g (2) (c) of the Defence Act as being a provision that neither prohibits nor regulates the carriage, provision or use of firearms but instead simply suspends the application of existing State and Territory prohibitions and regulations. Secondly, the Committee has noted from the explanatory statements accompanying the first 2 instruments that ``it is proposed that the new exemption provisions will remain in force for approximately 6 months, to give the rifle clubs and associations time to adjust to State and Territory law, and will then be repealed''. Having considered this legislation as a package, and bearing in mind various public safety consideration which arise from it, the Committee agreed to suggest that the Defence (General) Regulations and the Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order be each amended by the insertion of an appropriate sunset clause to terminate their operation. This will guarantee that if your proposed timetable for change is not met and the extension of the life of the legislation is necessary, this will require fresh instruments and these will come before the Parliament (and the Committee) for further scrutiny in the usual way. As a matter of principle the Committee considers that where delegated legislation is acknowledged to be designed for a temporary purpose which is to be achieved within the constraints of a publicly stated timetable, then it is legislatively proper that a suitable sunset clause should emphasise ministerial acceptance of the transitional nature of that legislation. This delegated legislative package is one of very considerable potential significance to the public and the Parliament. Although intended to maintain in legal force, though by virtue of a different legal instrument, the pre-existing exemptions prescribed by regulation 80 of the Australian Rifle Clubs Regulations, the proposed restructuring of the Clubs and eventual applicability of State and Territory gun and liquor licensing controls and are all matters bearing on a range of public policy and public safety matters of great general interest. If the present structures and controls, in particular the exemption from gun laws, are intended by the Minister to be temporary then the interests of public safety and efficient public administration of the transition may best be served by inserting sunset clauses into the Order and the Defence (General) Regulations to reflect and guarantee this intent. Such clauses would furnish a definite legislative assurance that this far reaching initiative affecting gun clubs would be tightly and carefully managed to achieve a particular policy goal without delay. The committee makes no comment whatsoever on the merits of this initiative. That is not its role. Our concern is with the legal and public safety implications of delegated legislation which suspends the operation of laws to control guns and liquor. The Committee would welcome your comments on this proposal. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA MINISTER FOR DEFENCE PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 9 May 1988 Senator Bob Collins Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Collins I refer to your letter of 24 March 1988 in which you sought my views on certain matters relating to the Defence (General) Regulations and the Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order (as amended). I note that you have since given a protective notice of motion with regard to the Order. At the outset, I would like to say that I share your concern over the unsatisfactory nature of legislation affecting rifle clubs. As there is no longer any real basis for Defence interest in the activities of rifle clubs, there is no justification for general Commonwealth legislation on the matter. As you will appreciate, however, I have been prepared to accept the need for specific provisions of a transitional kind and in areas of difficulty. Accordingly, I have no difficulty with your suggestion of an express time limit and I would be prepared to sponsor the necessary amendments to include `sunset clauses' in the Defence (General) Regulations and the Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order. There is, however, a factor which complicates my position on this. You would be aware that Senator Reid has given notice of a motion for disallowance of Statutory Rules 1988 No. 17 which repealed the Australian Rifle Club Regulations. If this motion succeeds, it will of course revive the former regulations. The legislative position would then be confused, to say the least, with the concurrent operation in the same field of those Regulations, the Defence (General) Regulations, and the Rifle Club (Firearms) Order. Obviously, if the disallowance motion does succeed I will need to review the legislative and other options with respect to rifle clubs. In discussions over recent weeks about the rifle clubs legislative package and the disallowance motion, there have been some other matters raised which I should mention for information of your Committee. The first is that I have received representations that the exemptions contained in the Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order are not as wide as those in the previous Regulations in that safety templates for rifle ranges are not covered. In fact, this aspect was not specifically addressed in the previous Regulations and I am not convinced that rifle club members are disadvantaged by the new Order but, to meet the difficulties expressed to me, I have been prepared to make a further Order which would enable continuing use of templates based on Defence Force standards at ranges used by rifle clubs affiliated with the National Rifle Association and the National Small Bore and Air Rifle Association. The effect would be to substitute the Defence Force standards for those which might apply under State or Territory law. A further matter has been the proposed termination date for the Firearms Order and the Defence (General) Regulations. As was stated in the explanatory material for this legislation, it had been intended that the termination date be 30 June 1988, based on the Commonwealth's commitment in this respect at the Premiers' Conference on gun control. In the recent discussions I have indicated my willingness to extend the transition period for perhaps several months if this overcomes perceived difficulties. While I have been prepared to meet the expressed concerns on both the range safety and termination period issues, this has been dependent on the defeat of the disallowance motion. Accordingly, I think I have to say also that my undertaking to include termination dates in the Defence (General) Regulations and the Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order, like my willingness to make a range safety order, can be carried out only if the disallowance motion does not succeed. If it does succeed, I will have to undertake the review I mentioned above. If I may turn to questions (i) and (ii) at page 2 of your letter, the National Rifle Association of Australia has advised that there are no set rules for the security of firearms. However, members of rifle clubs are advised to follow military practice in securing rifles and rifle bolts separately. No changes are envisaged for the duration of the Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order. In fact it was not intended that there should be any changes as the purpose of the Order is merely to continue, for the interim period, the exemption from State and Territory law that existed under regulation 80 of the repealed Australian Rifle Club Regulations. In response to question (iii) at page 2 of your letter, I am advised that paragraph 5 of the Order would not affect a State or Territory law that imposed a prohibition, as distinct from a licensing requirement. For example, the Order would not override a State law prohibiting the ownership of automatic or semi-automatic rifles. In conclusion, may I again make it clear that I accept your Committee's points about the Defence (General) Regulations and the Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order. The only reason I cannot give an unqualified undertaking is the uncertainty relating to the disallowance motion for Statutory Rules 1988 No. 17. I will write to you again when the result of that motion is known, and when I have undertaken any consequent review. Yours sincerely KIM C. BEAZLEY PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 22 March 1988 The Hon. Gary Punch, M.P. Minister for the Arts and Territories Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 17 March 1988 the Committee considered the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1988 (being A.C.T. Ordinance No. 10 of 1988, tabled in the Senate on 16 March 1988). The Ordinance appears to contain an element of strict liability and the Committee invites your comments on the justifications for it. New subsection 186a (1) provides that ``A person shall not . . . drive a motor vehicle to which a trailer or camper unit is attached while another person is in or upon the trailer or camper unit''. New subsection 186a (2) provides that ``A person shall not remain in or upon a trailer or camper unit that is attached to a motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is being driven upon a public street.'' The Committee queries the need for legal drafting which appears to create strict liability which could convict of a crime an unwitting driver or a person accidentally stranded on a trailer or camper unit without the driver's knowledge. The Committee appreciates that these are regulatory offences, that the penalty is low and that prosecution guidelines and the commonsense of law enforcers could preclude vexatious prosecutions. However, the Committee is generally opposed on principle to the creation of strict liability offences unless there are compelling reasons of real public interest and real legal necessity to justify their presence on the statute book. These conditions would seem to be satisfied in, for example, the case of the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 1988 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 9 of 1988), concerning the use of vehicles carrying explosives. Where strong justifications do not exist strict offences should not be created since they can lie unremarked in legislation until a currently unforeseeable administrative expediency prompts their use with unjust consequences. As the relevant case law has demonstrated a prima facie strict offence can generate considerable debate and disagreement among judges and lawyers as to whether mens rea is a presumed requirement and whether the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available. The Committee would be pleased if you would re-examine the drafting of section 186a with a view to making it clear that some culpable element, whether knowledge or a lack of care, is necessary in order to ground criminality. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman MINISTER FOR THE ARTS AND TERRITORIES Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Senator Bob Collins Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Collins I refer to your letter of 22 March 1988 concerning the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) in which you sought my comments on the inclusion of strict liability offences in new subsections 186a (1) and 186a (2) of the Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936. The Committee has indicated its general opposition to the introduction of strict liability offences unless there are compelling reasons for the imposition of such an onus. While I agree with the Committee's views in respect of the application of strict liability offences, I would point out that the Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936 is an important piece of public safety legislation and I believe that the most rigorous standard should be applied where the activities of an individual can put the safety of others at risk. It is my view that it is appropriate that the offence created by subsection 186a (1) should be one of strict liability. The danger to persons riding in trailers or camper units is sufficiently serious to cast a strict onus on drivers to make every effort to ensure that they do not carry people in this way. The advice I have obtained from the Criminal Law Branch of the Attorney-General's Department in respect of the questions you have raised supports the view I have outlined. In relation to subsection 186a (2) I accept the Committee's view that a lesser onus should be applied and I will amend subsection 186a (2) to introduce an element of intention. I hope this information is of assistance to the Committee. Yours sincerely GARY PUNCH 4 May 1988 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. Government Response to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam (The Evatt report)-together with (a) An Assessment and Recommendations as a Basis for a Final Cabinet Submission-document prepared by Mr R. D. Hogg and (b) a Schedule outlining the Government's response to each recommendation of the Evatt Royal Commission presented in Volume 8 of the Commission's final report. 2. Local Government Grants Commission, Queensland-eleventh report 1987 on financial assistance for local government-section 13 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to have the Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, the Evatt report, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ON THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE USE AND EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AGENTS ON AUSTRALIAN PERSONNEL IN VIETNAM (THE EVATT REPORT) On 22 August 1985 my predecessor tabled the 9-volume report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, conducted by Mr Justice Phillip Evatt, DSC-the Evatt Commission. At that time Senator Gietzelt announced that, on the basis of the scientific, medical, statistical, and other evidence relied upon by the Commission, the Government accepted that the case for a link between Agent Orange and health problems among Vietnam veterans had not been established. The Government announced its intention to give close further consideration to other specific findings and recommendations of the Commission. In that it has been ably assisted by a report from Mr R. D. Hogg. 2. The document tabled in November 1987 by Senator McLean and purporting to be the report of Mr Hogg was not the full report. I therefore table Mr Hogg's report as submitted to the Government. 3. Madam Speaker, I now wish to announce the results of the Government's consideration of these reports. In doing so, I table a schedule outlining the Government's response to each recommendation of the Evatt Royal Commission presented in Volume 8 of the Commission's final report. 4. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Evatt Report was the statement ``Agent Orange Not Guilty'', with which the Royal Commission headed the chapter on Conclusions in its final report. Wide publicity was given to Mr Hogg's dissatisfaction with that statement. In support of his view, Mr Hogg pointed out that it was too early yet to speak with such absolute certainty. He went on to say however that, leaving aside that heading, there was no convincing argument, no new material presented by the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia (VVAA) or others, to change the underlying conclusions and comments of the Commission. This, and Mr Hogg's judgment that the Commission's conclusions were, in the main, sustainable, did not receive wide publicity. 5. Much of the media and parliamentary attention given to the Evatt Royal Commission and its conclusions has centred on the criticisms made by and through the VVAA. In particular, the VVAA criticised what it saw as ``bias'' and ``plagiarism'' on the part of the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Evatt. The Government has considered these allegations. The Government's view is that no impropriety arises simply by reason of the fact that the Royal Commissioner adopted, by acknowledged quotation or otherwise, parts of submissions made to him. Further, the Government considers that other general allegations could not be sustained on the material provided by the VVAA. The Government confirms that it does not doubt Mr Justice Evatt's integrity, and notes that his integrity was not questioned by any party at the time of his selection as Royal Commissioner. 6. In addition to its own allegations, the VVAA submitted criticisms by some scientists dissatisfied with the Royal Commissioner's findings or with his treatment of them as witnesses. The Department of Veterans' Affairs examined the VVAA's submissions and made detailed comments on them, including comments on the complaints by Swedish scientists Drs Hardell and Axelson. In commending the thoroughness and objectivity of the Department's analyses, Mr Hogg expressed the view that the analyses should conclude the Government's responses to matters relating to the conduct of the Evatt inquiry and should be made available to the VVAA. The Government endorses this view and that material will now be made available. It also endorses the view that the Government should not proceed with any further inquiry into the Evatt Royal Commission's work, as-in Mr Hogg's words-no benefit would accrue to the health of Vietnam veterans from such an inquiry. 7. Madam Speaker, the Government has no option but to endorse the Commission's conclusions on chemicals and health as consistent with the evidence put before the Royal Commissioner. In short, the Commissioner concluded that the exposure of Australian service personnel in Vietnam to chemical agents did not produce dosage levels which would be likely to cause any long-term health effects. He also concluded that exposure of fathers to chemicals in Vietnam had not caused, and would not cause, birth defects. As a general statement, veterans and their families can be reassured by the Commissioner's report and his conclusions. 8. The evidence provided by the weight of scientific research and by the available data on cancer incidence among Australian veterans gives a solid basis for the Commission's summary conclusions on cancer. Nevertheless, reservations have been expressed about the Commission's final statement that ``service in Vietnam has not and will not cause cancer amongst veterans''. The Government does not intend to leave this potential source of concern unexamined, as I shall explain in more detail when discussing Mr Hogg's recommendations. 9. As to the Commission's recommendations, they are a mixed bag. Some ask the Government to do what it is already doing. Some raise what are, at most, very minor matters. Other recommendations nevertheless propose significant changes in the Repatriation system. The Government's response to the Commissioner's recommendations, including those which fall within the portfolio of the Minister for Defence, is contained in the material I have tabled. I propose to speak only to those recommendations which cover matters of some substance. 10. The Commissioner recommended ``that as a matter of policy claims by Vietnam veterans, their widows or dependants based on diseases of the circulatory system be allowed''. In the same terms he recommended that claims based on alcohol induced diseases or alcoholism itself be allowed. In Volume 5 of his report, though not in his summary of recommendations, he recommended that any mental health disorder should also be accepted as a matter of policy. 11. The basis for these recommendations apparently was that Vietnam service involved stress. Further, alcohol and cigarettes were available in Vietnam and an increase in smoking and drinking could be connected with Vietnam service. These are observations which may be correct. There is, however, a very considerable jump in translating these observations into a recommendation for automatic acceptance of particular conditions for Repatriation benefits. To take an extreme example, in relation to circulatory diseases, a veteran who never smoked, never drank, but spent one day in Vietnam could develop a heart condition fifty years after that day in Vietnam. If accepted, the Commissioner's proposal would mean that any claim for the heart condition would be automatically allowed under the Repatriation system. 12. Australia's Repatriation system is already among the most generous in the world, and the Government is unable to agree to the proposed automatic acceptance of pension claims for the stated health conditions. Under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Repatriation Commission is required to determine that an incapacity or death (claimed as related to the veteran's operational service) is war-caused unless the Commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination. The Act provides that the Commission shall be so satisfied if it is of the opinion that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the incapacity or death with the veteran's operational service. Cases are considered on their merits, taking account of known medical and other evidence. This approach will continue to be adopted. 13. The Commissioner sought an expanded role for the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. The VVCS, he recommended, should become a short term statutory authority, function as a mediator between veterans and Government agencies, provide an advisory service on Repatriation entitlements, issue travel warrants to veterans, and educate the community regarding the Commissioner's findings on Agent Orange. 14. The National Advisory Committee on VVCS has pointed out that development of the service would be delayed if a separate organisation with its own administrative structure had to be established, that the VVCS should not attempt to provide services and information to veterans which could be provided better by other organisations or by officers of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and that it was inappropriate for senior counsellors to perform the administrative function of issuing travel warrants. The Government shares these views. As to an educative role for the VVCS outside its own service and clients, the Government considers that a general community educational role could be counter-productive to good relations between the VVCS and its clients. The role of the VVCS is to provide counselling for Vietnam veterans in need. The additional roles which the Commissioner seeks would inhibit the ability of the VVCS to carry out its primary task. 15. In responding to the Commission's concern about veterans in remote areas, however, the Government has decided to increase VVCS funding to ensure a better service for country veterans and their families. This decision is consistent with the Government's concern that people living in country areas have an equitable access to Government services. The VVCS will be able to begin recruitment action designed to add six full-time positions to its staff. The aim will be for the extra staff to organise networks in country areas, employing local personnel on a part-time basis and providing up to 1,000 hours of fee for service counselling. To ensure that these additional resources are employed to the best advantage of veterans and their families, and to provide a basis for Government decisions on the level of assistance in future years, the use made of VVCS services will be closely monitored. I should make it clear, Madam Speaker, that this announcement does not pre-empt the work presently being carried out by the House Standing Committee on Community Affairs. The Committee will be reporting on matters of detail which will assist in determining the future scope and extent of work by the counselling service. I expect to be considering the Committee's report later this year. 16. In the body of his report the Commissioner referred to the provision of half-way homes or hostels for veterans. The Government has already provided support to assist in setting up an emergency accommodation centre for veterans in Queensland. Where the need for short-term emergency accommodation is demonstrated and the Government is satisfied that an applicant group has the necessary management expertise and community support, the Government is prepared to contribute, in the form of a seeding grant, towards establishing further community-based facilities. It is proposed to earmark up to $400,000 for this purpose over the next two years. Submissions developed by the ex-services community will be considered on their merits. 17. The Commission recommended that the Government erect a Vietnam veterans monument. The Australian War Memorial has been established as the national monument to the veterans of all the wars in which Australia has been engaged. An important aspect of this monument is the commemoration of veterans fallen in all wars, including the Vietnam conflict, by inscription of their names on the cloistral walls of the Memorial. 18. Some veterans' associations have seen fit to erect their own monuments in the national capital. A Committee representing a broad spectrum of Vietnam ex-service groups has sought approval to erect a memorial in Canberra. In processing the application the Canberra National Memorials Committee will consider the range of sites which might be suitable. The next step would then be for the ex-service Committee to make a detailed submission, including design and costing, for a specific form of memorial. Subject to the result of the National Memorials Committee's examination of any such proposal, the Government would be prepared to offer some financial assistance to the ex-service Committee. 19. Mr Hogg made a number of recommendations in his report. Some of these, including matters already alluded to in the Evatt recommendations, are covered elsewhere in this statement or in the schedule to it. The most significant Hogg report recommendations I have not so far referred to are a series of proposals for further scientific studies. I do not propose to comment on two of Mr Hogg's proposals (for studies of agricultural workers and of women exposed to phenoxy herbicides) because of their lack of relevance to the specific issue of veterans' exposure to chemicals in Vietnam. Other studies he suggested were a regular update of the earlier Australian mortality study, reactivation of the morbidity study referred to in the Evatt Royal Commission and investigation of possible health effects arising from the use of dapsone. 20. It should be noted that Mr Hogg himself said: ``. . . it is conclusive that there is no marked difference in the level and nature of illnesses between Vietnam veterans and army personnel who did not serve''. As to mortality, the additional number of deaths available for analysis since the previous study would probably be too few at present to confirm or refute the findings of that study. As to morbidity, the Government had concluded earlier that such a study could not answer questions as to chemical causation (a conclusion which the US Government also appears to have reached after expenditure of many millions of dollars). The Australian pilot study has given cause for concern about the likelihood of reaching the necessary high contact and response rates and had indicated that, with veterans more motivated to participate than non-veterans, the difference in response rates could be marked and introduce distortions to a study. 21. Clearly, in addition to overall mortality, Mr Hogg saw the incidence of cancer as a continuing issue of concern. The Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) has already established a Vietnam veterans data base which contains, inter alia, details of causes of deaths. The Government is of the view that a more cost-effective approach to monitoring mortality or cancer incidence is to use the DVA's records, supplemented by information from State death and cancer registries. The Department will use its own staff to maintain update and improve the data base and extract material for analysis as required. The Department will also continue to monitor relevant overseas research. 22. Mr Hogg's final research proposal was that the Government immediately establish an epidemiological study into the possible health effects of the anti-malarial drug dapsone. The Government agrees with Mr Hogg-and with Mr Justice Evatt-that research into the cancer-causing potential of dapsone is desirable. It does not, however, support a wider investigation into all possible effects of the drug, given that dapsone's use for various medical purposes has resulted in an extensive knowledge of reactions it can cause. The National Health and Medical Research Council will be asked to advise on the feasibility of a study into whether dapsone is carcinogenic in man. 23. Madam Speaker, we have come a long way since fears about Agent Orange first emerged among Australian Veterans. Milestones along that road in Australia have included the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment report in 1982, the Government-sponsored birth defects and mortality studies, and in America the Ranch Hand and Centres for Disease Control studies. Soon after this Government came into office, it set up a wide-ranging Royal Commission which brought many leading international scientists here and visited others overseas in its search for the facts. Since becoming Minister I have ensured that the Royal Commission report, subsequent VVAA submissions and the Hogg report received thorough examination before Cabinet considered the whole issue. The Government believes that too many Vietnam veterans' lives have been disrupted by fears about Agent Orange and other chemicals. In endorsing the view that any exposure of Australians to chemical agents in Vietnam would be unlikely to cause long-term adverse health effects, the Government in no way steps aside from its commitment to help veterans. Its latest decisions reinforce the measures in place to provide continuing assistance to veterans and their families. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds, will be absent from Question Time today. She attended the funeral of former Senator Keeffe today and her plane has been delayed due to bad weather. In her absence, Senator Tate will answer questions which would normally be directed to Senator Reynolds. Senator STONE —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he agrees with the statement this morning by the Treasurer on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Pru Goward program in Canberra that to inject capital into Australian Airlines or Qantas Airways Ltd would mean having to take money from social programs, and-I quote the Treasurer: This Cabinet will not be prepared to do that. In light of the admitted inability of the Government to change Australian Labor Party policy in order to allow private investment in these enterprises, does the Minister see any solution or solutions other than the higher taxes option which he himself is reported to have mentioned at yesterday's ALP seminar on privatisation in Sydney? If so, what? Senator WALSH —Before I left home this morning I heard that the Treasurer was to be on the Pru Goward show, if that is what it is called, but I do not know what the Treasurer said. I did not hear it, I have not seen a transcript of it and, therefore, I do not feel inclined just to accept Senator Stone's interpretation of what the Treasurer said. I will look at the transcript later. Perhaps Senator Stone would care to have a look at the speech Senator Evans gave yesterday, in which he canvassed one other option-in careful terms, I think I should say; he was not suggesting, and certainly was not asserting, that that was the answer to a particular problem, but he suggested that it was one that was worth looking at. If Senator Stone is interested in doing something about policies which do some damage to the Australian economy, I might also refer him to an article published in today's Australian Financial Review, written by Peter Gill, in which it is reported that Australia is losing valuable new coal mine developments to other countries because of high hidden taxes and charges by the Queensland Government. So I suspect that if Senator Stone really wants to do something effective about what he sees to be a defect in economic policy somewhere or other, he should start with his own Party in his own Government in Queensland, instead of trying to tell the Labor Government how to run its affairs. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the remark by the Minister for Finance to the effect that he was not prepared to respond to the question on the basis of what I had put to the Senate, I should like to read to the Minister the text of the transcript of the Pru Goward interview as it bears upon the question. Mr Keating said: To the extent that we have to take money from social programs, and this is what it means, and put it into the capital base of Australian Airlines or Qantas, this Cabinet will not be prepared to do that. In the light of that quote from the transcript, which I am happy to pass to the Minister, will the Minister now respond to the question of whether, in the light of the Treasurer's remark this morning and in the light of the admitted inability of this Government to change the policy of its own Party to allow private investment in these enterprises, he sees any solution or solutions other than the higher taxes option which he is reported to have mentioned in Sydney yesterday? Senator WALSH —Assuming that the transcript is accurate, the Treasurer said that the Cabinet will not take money from social programs for equity capital injections. I do not know whether either the Treasurer or I can make pre-emptive assertions about what Cabinet may or may not do, but I can say that it is certainly not an option that appeals to me. If Senator Stone is worried about investment and, in particular, investment in industries which will help to close our current account deficit, I suggest that he start doing something about the hidden tax policies of the Queensland Government which the coal mining industry is now saying is shunting investment from Australia to overseas. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to a Press release issued by Mr Don Lakin, Executive Director of the Australian Hotels Association of Victoria, calling upon the Government not to change the tax provisions on accelerated depreciation? Has the Government in the past found the advice of the hospitality lobby on tax matters useful in judging the likely impact of particular measures on that industry? In light of that experience I ask whether the Government will be influenced by the following resolution passed by the Tourism and Hospitality is Your Future Conference held at the Hyatt on Collins: That the Government leave the current 5/3 tax provisions unchanged on May 25. Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, following the practice that I have followed for the last five years I will neither confirm nor deny or give any assurances about anything that may or may not be in Wednesday's economic statement. In response to the rest of the question, I have seen the Press release. I am a little surprised that the hospitality industry or the Australian Hotels Association should be placing great store by the 5/3 depreciation, unless it is true-and it has been alleged-that this provision has been abused to a significant extent by people who have been constructing hotels; that is, that particular companies which have a tax liability which can or could be offset are putting into new hotel buildings the plant and equipment items which are depreciable at the 5/3 rate while different financial arrangements are made for the building itself. In respect of some of the other claims that have been made by the hospitality industry and echoed to a significant extent in the Press release put out by Mr Lakin, we have seen all of this before. People speaking for the hospitality industry claimed in 1985, for example, that the ending of the tax deductable free boozy lunch would lead to massive job losses in the industry. Those claims were mindlessly, boringly and tediously endorsed by Senator Messner, amongst others. The facts show that between August 1985 and August 1987 employment in restaurants, hotels and clubs, which is a category in the Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force surveys, rose from 176,000 to 212,000, an increase of just over 20 per cent in only two years. The Government has become a little tired of the alarmist claims made by members of this particular lobby about alleged changes in Government policies which allegedly cause serious employment losses and so on. We are almost as tired of them coming from the industry lobby as we are bored by them coming from Senator Messner. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask whether the Treasurer, Mr Keating, was speaking for the Government when, on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program in Canberra this morning in an interview that has already been referred to by Senator Stone in his question, in addition to saying that the Government could not put billions of dollars into Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines, Mr Keating said: . . . I don't think the Government ought to be running airlines. And that's why I think their equity ought to be sold down. We can't afford to continue providing subventions for their capital base. The fact is, all we need is someone to carry people on aircraft, whether they hop on the Ansett plane from Canberra to Sydney or the Australian Airlines plane, really doesn't matter very much. I ask whether the Minister agrees with the Treasurer that in order to keep pace with traffic growth-and again I quote Mr Keating: Qantas has to grow so quickly, and frankly, while we own it, it can't. What realistic options does the Government now have in trying to meet the massive capital requirements of the airlines, given the successful blocking of attempts to change Australian Labor Party policy on public ownership? Senator BUTTON —As I understand what the Treasurer said this morning, he was expressing his own view of whether a government should own airlines. After all, in the ultimate, these matters are all matters for decision by government. In so far as he allegedly-I have not seen the transcript-expressed a preference regarding this matter, I understand what he was saying because of the very real costs involved. I think I identified the options available to the Government in some ways in answer to a question from Senator Chaney on Friday. There are a number of options which the Government can take in respect of a wide range of issues with government instrumentalities. The Government has not yet finally determined its position on the capital base of the airlines, and it will do so in due course. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that Ministers in the Hawke Government are entitled to express personal opinions or views on matters, including matters lying within the responsibility of other Ministers, and that we are not to take those views as indicating those of the Government? If that is not the case, can the Minister tell us how we are to know when Ministers are speaking on behalf of the Government and when they are simply expressing a personal view? Senator BUTTON —If a Minister starts off, as Senator Chaney quoted in this question, by saying that he does not think that the Government ought to be running airlines, that is an expression of a personal view and it has nothing to do with any Government decision on this matter. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It relates to a matter concerning the Insurance and Superannuation Commission. Does the Minister recall that Senator Chaney argued in the Senate last Thursday that member representatives of boards or committees responsible for the management of superannuation funds should be drawn by election from the ranks of the members of the relevant funds? Does he recall that Senator Chaney used the analogy of shareholders electing company directors to support his argument? Has the Minister had the opportunity to reflect further on this matter and does he now support Senator Chaney's propositions? Senator WALSH —I recall very well that last Thursday Senator Chaney, when speaking in support of his motion to disallow a regulation that allowed nominees of unions to be trustees in superannuation funds, said that was an intolerable proposition. He did expressly say: In reality, what this definition permits- that is, the definition in the regulation- is for a superannuation fund to have as a member representative or, indeed, as member representatives people nominated by trade unions who themselves are not members of the fund. He went on to say: It may well be that that person is not a member of the fund. It certainly may well be that that person is not put there with the acquiescence or the approval of the members of the fund. He went on to draw a similar analogy in regard to directors, implying that directors of a company should be shareholders in the company and should be elected by company shareholders. He did not make it entirely clear whether he was stating what he believed to be the legal position in respect of company directors or stating what ought to be the standard practice for which there is at least a powerful moral imperative, if not a legal requirement. I am still checking the facts on this but I have come across some examples of people who have been directors of companies without being either shareholders in the companies or elected by the shareholders of the companies. For example, the 1986 annual report of Peko-Wallsend Ltd stated that Mr J. O. Stone had been appointed a director on 30 April 1986. The same report noted that at 8 September 1986 Mr J. O. Stone held no shares, no notes and no options in Peko-Wallsend. So unless he had some shares in April and sold them off before 8 September, Mr Stone, as Senator Stone then was, clearly was not a shareholder in the company to which he had been appointed-not elected-a director. In September 1986 he was one of two non-shareholding directors of Peko. Senator Chaney might care to note that another non-shareholder director of Peko-Wallsend at the time was Mr Charles Copeman, who became a director in Peko-Wallsend in 1981 but was reported in either its 1982 or 1983 annual reports as holding no shares or notes in the company. I am not certain whether he had shares in the company by 1986 but certainly, according to the annual reports, in either 1982 or 1983 he did not have any; even though he was a director. Lest Senator Chaney should think that Peko-Wallsend is a unique case in the private sector, some sort of black sheep, I refer him to the annual report of Elders IXL Ltd, the company of which the Liberal Party President, Mr John Elliott, and I understand a good friend of Senator Chaney, is the supremo. In the 1986 annual report of Elders it was disclosed that two directors, Mr Brian Loton and Mr J. T. Ralph, were reported to hold neither any fully paid nor any partly paid shares. I understand that Mr Loton gained his position as a result of being nominated by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, not elected by the shareholders in any thing approaching-not a democratic vote-a vote based on shares held in the company or power delegated to others. In other words, what Senator Chaney seemed to regard, or pompously and piously would have had us believe last Thursday was normal practice, if not a moral and legal imperative in the private sector, is a view not shared by either Mr Elliott or Senator Stone. In conclusion I note that Senator Stone had no qualms about voting for Senator Chaney's motion which canvassed propositions which Senator Stone had breached less than two years ago. Senator SANDERS —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to an article which appeared in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin on 19 May in which it is reported that he has agreed to relinquish part of the Shoalwater Bay training area in central Queensland to provide for the development by Lang Hancock of a deep water coal port at Port Clinton and a new railway line. Could the Minister confirm the accuracy of this report and inform the Senate why he now believes that such development will not threaten the integrity of this training area and diminish its values as a military area? Has the Minister sought advice from the Australian Heritage Commission on how the National Estate values of Shoalwater Bay will be affected by his decision to allow it to be developed for a port? Will the proposal be examined under the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974? Senator ROBERT RAY —I thank Senator Sanders for giving me some advance notice of the question, but not the changing of it. I have read the article in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin that he refers to. In that article, Mr Wright has included as a Press release, if we could call it that, possible developments at Shoalwater Bay. Mr Wright did receive a briefing on this issue last month from the Minister for Defence. The matter of access to Shoalwater Bay training area as a new coal export port has been under examination and discussion for some time. A number of port sites in and around Shoalwater Bay training area have been identified. Defence provided access to Queensland authorities to conduct a technical reconnaissance survey of possible options late last year. No firm proposal from Queensland has yet been received. Until a firm proposal is received, the total impact on Shoalwater Bay training area cannot be established. Any development of a port in Shoalwater Bay training area would need to be consistent with the defence needs and requirements to preserve the integrity of this vital joint service training area. Finally, as indicated in the Press report, the proposal would also need to address all the environmental and heritage issues. Shoalwater Bay training area is on the Register of the National Estate. The implications for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority would also be a major consideration. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister for Consumer Affairs seen allegations that a company in Melbourne is advertising the availability of irradiation of food? Can the Minister say whether these reports are accurate and whether the Government needs to take any action in response to these allegations? Senator BOLKUS —As Senator Childs indicates, it has been brought to my attention that there are some allegations that a company in Melbourne has advertised the availability of gas or gamma sterilisation of freeze dried chicken meat dice. I also understand that this particular company, called Cotter Food Services Pty Ltd, has given evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts. There may be questions arising out of that evidence. To the Government it seems that there is prima facie evidence of a situation which needs further inquiry and explanation. As honourable senators will know, the whole question of food irradiation is a complex and intricate one. It is still under consideration by government. In fact, the House of Representatives recently established an inquiry through its Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts to consider further the question. Both the Federal and State governments have agreed that no further decision will be taken in this area pending the final report of that Committee. In the meantime, the National Foods Standards Council and the Uniform Food Law Interpretation Committee met earlier this year. These bodies have been instrumental in ensuring that there has been an agreement between State and Federal governments to ensure that the process of irradiation is neither facilitated nor allowed pending the conclusion of the report and also to allow individual States to implement standards prohibiting food irradiation if an individual State so decides. I note that South Australia is one State that is conditionally going down that track. Further to this report being brought to my notice, I did raise the matter with the Victorian Government which is not implementing legislation, but which also wants to ensure that the agreement between State and Federal governments is being adhered to. I am assured that the Victorian Health Department is currently investigating the situation. In conclusion, the Government's objectives in this matter are twofold: firstly, to ensure that the agreement between State and Federal governments is kept and, secondly, to ensure that there is no pre-emption of the agreed policy formulation process between State and Federal governments. Senator SHEIL —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to my question to him last week about the danger of a mid-air collision over Coolangatta Airport because of the lack of radar facilities and the Minister's admission that that very busy airport has no radar coverage below 4,000 feet, but that coverage would be extended by the early 1990s. As the Minister and honourable senators would be aware, last Friday afternoon there was a terrible accident over Coolangatta Airport when two aircraft collided and four people were killed. Is it a fact that provision of suitable radar would cost less than $6m which, in terms of government priorities, is about the same as has been spent on the futile creation of the Constitutional Commission? In view of Friday's horrifying crash, which could have cost more lives had the wreckage fallen on the heavily populated areas surrounding Coolangatta Airport, will the Minister now reconsider the timetable he announced last week and make upgrading of radar and instrument landing facilities a matter of the utmost urgency? Finally, in light of the Minister's claim last week that lack of radar cover was not relevant to the incident I mentioned-I find this hard to believe with two big jets approaching the same runway from different ends-will the Minister arrange for the release of the transcript of conversations between air traffic control and the pilots of the two jetliners concerned and with the pilot of another commercial aircraft on the ground at the same time? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the last part of the question, I shall have to see what the normal practice is in relation to that and give Senator Sheil an answer on notice accordingly. As to the main thrust of his question, it is the case that a tragic accident did occur at Coolangatta at approximately 4.10 p.m., three days ago, on 20 May, involving a mid-air collision between two locally-based light aircraft. The aircraft were carrying out circuit and landing training at the airport. Both were operating on right-hand circuits to land and take off on runway 14. While on the downwind leg of the circuit the aircraft collided and fell to the ground out of control. The two people in each aircraft were killed. The details of this accident are currently the subject of investigation by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. Senator Sheil would appreciate that it is simply inappropriate for me to comment on this accident specifically until the Bureau has completed its investigation and reported. However, I can say something about the larger theme of Senator Sheil's question, which is the implications of the presence or absence of radar for circuit and landing training of this kind. The present situation at Coolangatta with regard to radar, as I told him in this place the other day, is that coverage is provided down to approximately 4,000 feet above the aerodrome from Brisbane radar sensors. From this height aircraft are then processed into the Coolangatta terminal area. The radar enhancement program, as I have also said, is currently in train and it will provide radar coverage at Coolangatta down to ground level, with expected commissioning in the early 1990s. However, when the radar is installed at Coolangatta, separation of aircraft operating on circuit and landing training will continue to be provided visually by the air traffic controller situated in the Coolangatta control tower. Control instructions to these aircraft operations are currently based on visual observation and this will continue to be the case, as it is at all other airports in Australia where circuit training is performed. Radar separation requires a minimum spacing between aircraft of three nautical miles or approximately six kilometres. This would severely restrict aircraft operating locally-as the expression goes-at airports where the minimum spacing required is only 600 metres. Visual separation is considered to be the safest and most efficient means of controlling aircraft that are conducting circuits and landings in the aerodrome traffic area. That is not to say that things cannot go wrong on occasions but it remains to be established by the proper investigative process what happened and who, if anyone, was at fault. Senator SHEIL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question in view of the answer given by the Minister about the timetable. I point out that Coolangatta Airport is an important tourist destination. If tourists think they will be flying into an unsafe area, that will have a very deleterious effect on the tourist industry at the southern end of Queensland. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not understand that to be a question so much as a rather tendentious statement. It is not helpful to comment in those terms in circumstances where I do not believe the practice elsewhere in this country and around the world justifies so negative a conclusion being drawn. Senator MAGUIRE —My question to the Minister for Transport and Communications is also on the question of air safety. Has the Minister seen the article in the Adelaide Advertiser on 19 May reviewing the recent Boeing 737 incident in Hawaii and discussing the worrying question of aircraft fatigue? Is it the case that these old series Boeing 737s, which are not used in Australia, were constructed using a now abandoned manufacturing process? Can the Minister say whether the same process was used in the manufacture of Australia's ageing fleets of B727 aircraft? How often are Australian domestic airliners inspected for metal fatigue? Senator GARETH EVANS —The investigation of the Aloha B737 aircraft accident is being closely monitored by my Department, as I indicated in an answer to an earlier question on this subject. The now abandoned manufacturing process to which Senator Maguire referred is called cold bonding and was used on some joints in early aircraft. However, I am advised it was used in addition to rivets, which are designed to carry full loads. There are no B737-200 aircraft in Australia and later aircraft, including all Australian B727-200 aircraft, used only rivets with no bonding of those joints. Components of all aircraft used in airline operations in Australia are inspected frequently for fatigue cracking, at different intervals ranging from daily to annually. The problem of fatigue cracking in older airline aircraft is the subject of constant examination by world airworthiness authorities. In addition to routine maintenance schedules and procedures, aviation authorities advise operators of special inspections in mandatory airworthiness directives, and there are supplemental structural inspections enforced for all types resulting from structural audits designed to ensure the long term integrity of older aircraft. The United States Federal Aviation Administration is holding a meeting from 1 to 3 June of world airworthiness authorities and airlines to cover all safety aspects of old transport aircraft. Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia are expected to send specialist engineers to this meeting and the Department of Transport and Communications will also be represented. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. In about July last year, did the Minister have discussions with representatives of the Design Board of the Australia Council and give it an assurance that no further actions would be taken by the Government in respect of the position of the Designs Board without further consultations? Is he aware that Senator Button has also had discussions with representatives of the Design Board and expressed his support for the continuing work of that organisation? Given these facts, can the Minister now explain why the Minister for the Arts and Territories has directed that the Design Board should be wound up and has taken steps to revoke the instrument appointing the Design Board as part of the Australia Council and replace it with two separate boards, one to be chaired by Professor Horne, and the other by Mr Andrews, which will have the net effect of reducing substantially the effective input of designs advice to the Australia Council? Senator RICHARDSON —Yes, I can recall having some discussions with Mr Andrews, in particular, who was the Chairman of the Board. I am not sure whether those discussions were in July last year. However, I met with him on a couple of occasions. I can also recall discussing this matter several times with Senator Button. Our concern was-and it was certainly indicated to Mr Andrews-that the Government should maintain a design function for a board or committee of some sort. We were certainly of the view that this was an important function that should not be done away with. However, there was the matter of deciding where such a function ought best to lie and how it might best be conducted, the argument being, given that one of the roles of the old Design Board in the previous year had been to select the winner of a competition to redesign Parramatta Road, whether this was an appropriate matter to be handled under an Australia Council umbrella. Discussions about that lasted for some time. I am not sure whether the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, has made a decision yet, but the last time I spoke to Mr Horne of the Australia Council, certainly, I was led to believe that agreement with Mr Andrews and members of the Design Board was close as regards having it formed into a design committee. I have not precisely followed up whether that has been announced, or whether Mr Punch has approved it; but the last time I checked, that was where it was heading. Senator SCHACHT —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy seen a Press report in today's Australian Financial Review indicating that the Soviet Union has a real chance of getting fishing access to Australian ports following indications of a new bilateral fishing deal between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) at the coming summit meeting between Mr Reagan and Mr Gorbachev? Can the Minister give the Senate any details on the state of negotiations between Australia and the USSR regarding any such fishing deal between our countries? Can the Minister also give any details about such a deal as it relates to, firstly, access by Soviet fishing vessels to Australian ports; secondly, what would be the benefits, if any, to Australia by entering into such a deal; thirdly, landing rights for Aeroflot Soviet Airlines to assist in crew changes; and, fourthly, which Australian ports could be used for ship repair, maintenance and crew changes? Senator COOK —I did see a report in the Australian Financial Review today, I think under the by-line of Geoff Kitney, its chief political reporter, about Soviet access to the Australian fishing zone. I cannot answer all of the questions that Senator Schacht has raised, but I can make a fair bash at some of them. Senator McGauran —Did you see them beforehand? Senator COOK —No, I did not. We actually do get questions without notice on the front bench, but the honourable senator will never get to the front bench so he will never find out. A Soviet Union delegation visited Canberra on 18 to 20 April last. Senator Vanstone —You are a big deal, aren't you? Big hero. Senator COOK —I cannot hear the honourable senator's interjection. She is wasting her time and breath. The delegation visited for what were termed exploratory, scientific and technical discussions on the Australian fishing zone fisheries. During that visit brief meetings were held with industry representatives and visits were undertaken to Geelong and Portland in Victoria to view industry developments and related infrastructure for fishing. I am advised that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics side in these talks has raised a number of specific proposals which will need to be considered by the Australian Government and discussed with appropriate industry organisations before they are finally considered. At this point no response has been given to the USSR other than to promise to consider the issues it has raised. In considering the proposals the Government will take into account the nature and level of benefits derived from the proposals, the interests of the Australian fishing and fish processing industries, and our relations with the Pacific island states. In respect of all those four subquestions asked by Senator Schacht-about access to ports; the benefits that might apply, for example, whether Aeroflot might get landing rights on crew interchange; and which ports might be used in ship maintenance and repair-I will have to take them on notice. I understand, though, that there is some unused capacity in the Australian fish processing industry, and that is one of the things being discussed at these talks that are being held. But all of those other four subquestions I will take on notice and get back to the honourable senator on them as soon as possible. Senator PATTERSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. In response to a question from Senator Michael Baume in Senate Estimates committee hearings, did Senator Ray indicate that he was not aware of the extent to which properties the Government owns were vacant or underutilised, that it would be a `herculean' task to find out and that, `We may have to make a judgment as to the amount of resources we would need to devote to answering that question'? What measures does the Minister for Administrative Services intend to take to ensure that such basic information, which would be readily available to any private sector property manager, is provided in view of the extent of the waste resulting from rent forgone on empty properties, or cash proceeds not received from the disposal of such properties? Senator ROBERT RAY —I can confirm to Senator Patterson that I did make that statement at the Estimates committee. There has been publicity subsequent to that time, and we have made some efforts to track down exactly what the situation of dead rent in government buildings was. At the time of the Estimates committee hearing the rough estimate, if you like, given of government property involved in dead rent was 1.3 per cent, which related very favourably with any commercial rates. Subsequent to that we had some of the most ridiculous statements in the world made by Mr Porter, saying that dead rent was up to $50m a year, a figure Senator Michael Baume would not agree with. He has done research in that particular area. He has made accusations, but he has never gone to the point of making such a wild claim as $50m a year. At the time Mr West published the relevant figures. Senator Michael Baume —On leased property. Senator ROBERT RAY —On leased property, of course, and the amount of dead rent was adjusted, I think, between 1.3 to 1.6 per cent per year. I think the upper figure was $6.4m at worst, nothing like the $50m claimed by Mr Porter from South Australia. I do not think he is the shadow spokesman-but the actual figure was in the vicinity of $43m lower. However, the trend line for dead rent is definitely on the way down. The evidence given at the Estimates Committee hearing confirms that it is on the way down from a figure of over 3 per cent. In the time that Mr West has had that portfolio I think he has done very well in reducing the amount of dead rent burdened on any government, better than any other Minister in the last 15 years. Senator PATTERSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister advise whether that includes leased land as well as owned land and whether there is any answer as to teasing out the difference between leased property versus owned property? Senator ROBERT RAY —There is no doubt that with enough work we can supply those figures. No doubt we will get asked for them at the next Estimates committee hearing. In anticipation of that I will have the figures prepared. Senator GIETZELT —My question is to the Minister for Finance. It deals with the Darwin-Alice Springs railway. Is it the Government's intention to match the Opposition's commitment to provide financial assistance to the Northern Territory Government to construct the Darwin-Alice Springs railway, as contained in the Liberal Party's transport policy of the shadow transport Minister, Julian Beale? Senator WALSH —I have seen the summary of what is laughingly-humorously-called the `transport policy', put out by one Julian Beale. The summary says that a Liberal-National government will-- Senator Cook —Was he one of the young Liberals? Senator WALSH —Oh no, he is much too old for a Young Liberal. The summary says: To this end a Liberal-National government will . . . strongly support the efforts of the Northern Territory Government to facilitate completion of the Darwin-Alice Springs railway by a maximum private sector involvement. Either that is a completely meaningless statement, other than one of standing on the sidelines saying, `That will be a nice thing if you can do it', or it is a commitment to funding from the Commonwealth Budget to support this uneconomic project. I would like to know when Senator Stone is doing his additions a bit later whether he has that on his list, not of spending cuts, but of spending increases. I would like to know whether Senator Stone is going to add an amount to the $500m or $600m that his National Party colleagues have already committed a coalition government to in spending increases. They are always talking about spending cuts in the abstract, but when it comes down to specifics they are always committing themselves to spending increases. I will be interested to see whether Mr Beale's commitment on this is on Senator Stone's list of spending increases when he finally gets around to publishing one. Senator Lewis —Mr President, I take a point of order. Not only has the Minister got it wrong, but also he is undoubtedly debating the issue. I ask you to make him answer the question and not debate the Opposition's policy in relation to any other matter. The PRESIDENT —The Minister was dealing with a legitimate area of his portfolio, but he was taking a long time to answer the question. I ask him to answer the question as quickly as possible. Senator WALSH —Senator Lewis says that I have got it wrong. I will be interested to hear Senator Lewis's personal explanation at the end of Question Time detailing how I have got it wrong. If Mr Beale's commitment means anything at all, it means money off the Commonwealth Budget. If it does not mean money off the Commonwealth Budget, it is a pea and thimble trick. I will be interested to hear Senator Lewis's explanation as to why it is not, or how I have got it wrong. I will also be interested to see not only whether it is on Senator Stone's increased spending list, but also how much he has got figured in for it, whether it is $100m, $200m or $500m. I was asked whether the Government is going to match the Opposition's commitment. The Government made its decision about this proposal about four years ago, or it may have been a little more than four years ago. There has been no evidence that is worth anything-I add that qualification because I am aware of some shonky so-called economic analysis that was done a couple of years ago-to suggest that the Government should change its mind. This latest undertaking from Mr Beale should be seen as either a pea and thimble trick or the latest instalment in fiscal ratbaggery from the Opposition. Senator TAMBLING —I refer the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to the retrospective announcement of his junior Minister, Mr Punch, on 12 May that the deadline for final proposals for a successor mining operation on Christmas Island was 30 April. How is it that the person Mr Punch appointed to expeditiously assess proposals has subsequently, in the Press, overturned that deadline and reinvited proposals? Is the Minister aware that the assessor's advertisement now offers an information package to interested organisations which is being prepared by the external territories section of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories? Will the Minister counsel his junior Minister on this matter and ensure that he roots out the people in his Department who are responsible for continually undermining his decisions and frustrating any resolution of a successor mining operation on Christmas Island? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of the liquidator's actions over the last few weeks and I think they are perfectly normal. I am not aware that the liquidator has gone outside his parameters and nor has the Minister gone outside his. An information package that was asked for by the liquidator is being prepared and if he requires advice from Mr Punch's Department, presumably it will be provided. In terms of looking at the mining operation and where it goes, the liquidator was given quite extensive powers and, of course, is acting upon them, as is his right and as is his proper duty. I would hope that the matter of whether that mine is continued, if it is a viable proposition, will be settled very quickly and that the liquidator, in looking to get some further information, not only from the Minister but also from those who potentially might like to operate the mine, is reasonable in the circumstances. I would seek not to counsel my junior Minister on that but rather to encourage him. Senator TAMBLING —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister look further at this matter? Should the assessor be found to have been a witting party to a conspiracy against Mr Punch, will he ensure that the current advertisements are withdrawn? Senator RICHARDSON —I really do not know what to say. I know that the liquidator has power under the ordinance to wind up the operations of the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd, to sell equipment or any part of the property of the corporation in accordance with his own discretion. If he is considering the views of people who might wish to operate the mine I think he is acting properly. He has wide powers under the ordinance and he has done nothing to go outside them. I do not believe he is in any conspiracy against Mr Punch. I think the situation is more than satisfactory. Senator JENKINS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy aware of the proposal by two Western Australian veterinarians to establish commercial fox fur production in Western Australia? What involvement has the Western Australian Department of Agriculture in this project? What involvement has the Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy in this project? Is the Minister aware of plans to import fox semen? Is the Minister aware of reactions to the proposal from Western Australian farmers, in particular poultry farmers, in the light of the serious fox problems and the danger of escapes and subsequent potential improvement of wild fox stock? Will the Minister agree that foxes prefer to keep their fur coats on themselves and that divesting them of their coats is an unacceptable cruelty? Senator COOK —I do not know that I could agree that foxes prefer to keep their fur coats on themselves because I have never asked a fox. I assume that foxes prefer to keep their coats on themselves. But I must say that I find this beguiling sentimentality from Senator Jenkins a little odd in that-- Senator Jenkins —It is a worry for Western Australian poultry farmers. Senator COOK —This is Senator Jenkins's third or fourth question about poultry farmers. Her question does not contemplate the hard reality that farmers kill foxes because they regard foxes as vermin. Foxes may prefer to keep their lives, let alone their coats; but farmers actively kill foxes because foxes are regarded as vermin. Foxes raid poultry coops and effect other damage to organised agricultural production in Australia. If this question is a question of concern about the well-being of foxes-I refer to that part of the question concerning their fur coats, et cetera-I assume that foxes prefer to keep their fur coats; but, if the honourable senator is concerned about foxes keeping their fur coats, why is she not concerned also about farmers killing foxes? It seems to me that that is internally inconsistent with the question that she has asked. I come back to the four questions that Senator Jenkins has asked. I am aware of those proposals; but I am advised that the Agricultural Protection Board of Western Australia has had the proposal from the veterinarians, that Senator Jenkins referred to, withdrawn. Therefore, it does not stand before the Agricultural Protection Board as a positive proposal. On that basis I can answer all of her other questions, but it would seem to me that the answers are academic. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's Australian Financial Review headlined `High freight rates force coal-miners off-shore'? Does the Minister agree with the senior coal company executive quoted in that article that Australia is losing potential export revenue as a result of high hidden taxes levied by the Queensland Government? What is the effect of this on Australia's balance of payments position? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article. Indeed, I referred to it briefly in answering an earlier question. I will refer to it at greater length in answering this question. The article is written by Peter Gill and is published in today's Australian Financial Review. It begins by stating: Australia is losing valuable new coal-mine developments to other countries because of high taxes and charges, particularly in Queensland. It refers to the General Manager of Allied Queensland Coalfields Ltd and states: He cites two examples from his own company's experience to demonstrate the impact of high Queensland rail freight rates and other unreasonable capital cost demands. A central Queensland coal deposit, Baralaba, paid rail freight charges of $15.61 a tonne in trial shipments, giving the Queensland Government a profit of about $10 a tonne. I certainly agree with what Mr Salway said. Indeed, I and a number of other people on the Government side have been saying similar things for a number of years. Queensland parades itself as a low tax, free enterprise State when in fact it rips off hidden taxes through excessive rail charges. This is a fact of which I am sure Senator Parer was well aware when he was working for the Utah company. Indeed, there is probably nobody in the Senate who is better aware of the great rip-off practised by the Queensland Government than Senator Parer. These taxes are disguised as rail freight, and the Queensland Government, according to the industry in which Senator Parer once worked, rips off $350m a year in hidden taxes from coalmining companies. While I am not able to pass judgment on the specific projects to which Mr Salway referred, I think that, as a matter of commonsense or on a basic understanding of arithmetic, there must be a point at which a company decides that this Queensland State Government rip-off is so huge that it will not develop a mine in Queensland; it will go to some other country around the globe and develop a mine there instead. It follows axiomatically that, to the extent that that is happening, it is adversely affecting Australia's export potential and our current account deficit. Senator Sheil —High taxes? Senator WALSH —Finally, I once again suggest to Senator Stone, and Senator Sheil, that instead of making completely unhelpful and usually frivolous and foolish suggestions about how the Australian Labor Party should be organising its affairs-a party in which they have absolutely no influence-they use whatever influence they might have on the Queensland National Party to see whether they can persuade it to behave a bit more sensibly both in the interest of Queensland and in the national interest, and to change the great rip-off policy which it has been pursuing for at least a decade, of which, as I said before, Senator Parer is very well aware. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister make available as soon as possible the names of the 500 or so people on the personal list invited by the Prime Minister to attend the opening of the new Parliament House and indicate in which hall they were seated? Will he also make available the list of those distinguished former parliamentarians who were unable to be accommodated in the main hall and who were obliged to listen to the ceremony by loudspeaker? Senator BUTTON —I will direct that question to the Prime Minister and obtain an answer as soon as possible. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. When he was responsible for the Industries Assistance Commission was it the procedure that he and his Department, where appropriate, in consultation with other Ministers and their departments, agreed on the terms of reference for an IAC inquiry and announced the inquiry and the terms of reference at the same time? I refer to the Treasurer's announcement on Australia Day-that is, 118 days ago-that there would be an inquiry into non-tax government charges on industry. Is it a fact that those terms of reference have not yet been agreed and have not been delivered to the Industries Assistance Commission? Is the reason that they have not been delivered to the IAC that the terms of reference have not been agreed upon by the Minister and the relevant departments? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is I believe yes; and the answer to the third question is that I do not know. There may be a number of relevant departments. I am not sure in respect of that issue. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister find out? Senator BUTTON —Yes. Senator BURNS —Has the Minister for Finance seen an article by Dr Daryl Dixon in today's Australian in which he costs unemployment at $6 billion? What has the Government done to minimise this figure? What is the Minister's response to the suggestion that private enterprise should have a greater input into training and retraining? Senator WALSH —I have seen an article. From reading the article it is not clear to me the extent to which Daryl Dixon is being quoted as against the extent to which he is being interpreted by Jan Carter from the Brotherhood of St Laurence. Having said that, it is reported that unemployment benefits consume 1.3 per cent of gross domestic product. That figure is very close to $4 billion, which is considerably higher than the likely outcome this year. The $6 billion figure is presumably derived by adding to the unemployment benefit payments the tax revenue notionally forgone because of the people receiving unemployment benefits not being employed. On that basis, the figure of $6 billion in revenue forgone and outlays and unemployment benefits paid is about right, I think, if it is assumed that unemployment could be reduced to zero. That is an unrealistic assumption. Even through the long boom during the 1950s and 1960s, unemployment was never zero. So the figure is overstated to some extent. The report does not make it entirely clear what are Dr Dixon's firm recommendations and what are somebody else's interpretations of them. But it is said that the study recommends research into reducing unemployment levels through job sharing and part time incomes. While job sharing might reduce the amount of unemployment benefits paid, if an existing job is shared between two people it would produce less tax revenue because of the progressive income tax system. It would not add to the gross domestic product. So I would like to have a much more comprehensive look at what Daryl Dixon prepared before passing final judgment on a number of those things. The Government is doing something about training, which was one of the options canvassed. But it should be borne in mind, lest people think that the whole problem can be solved by training, that unless the investment which provides additional positions in the work force has already taken place, the number of potential jobs will not be increased, regardless of how much training is indulged in. It is possible, of course, that there are some potential positions in the work force presently unfilled because there are no trained applicants to fill them. Leaving that aside, the problem of unemployment cannot be solved by increased expenditure or effort on training alone. They must be accompanied by a level of investment commensurate with increasing the total number of places available in the work force. Senator Burns also asked me what the Government has done about this matter. It has done a great deal. When we came into office, the unemployment rate, if I remember correctly, was 10.4 per cent. It was certainly above 10 per cent. It fell in the month of March to 7.8 per cent. It rose in April somewhat because the participation rate increased. But just on the crude figures, the unemployment rate has fallen by more than two percentage points since this Government has come into office. Therefore, if we accept the $6 billion figure, had it not been for the policies this Government has put in place, it would have been more like $8 billion. The suggestion implied in this report is that we should have a big injection of Keynesian pump-priming to stimulate the economy. In some circumstances that might be a good idea but a country which has a continuing current account problem-- Senator Lewis —It was until early 1982. Senator WALSH —As Senator Lewis knows, I have said many times that a country which has a continuing current account problem has fewer options that a country that does not. Anybody who knows anything about the subject would agree that a Keynesian-type expansionist policy could, and indeed if pushed very far almost certainly would, aggravate the current account problem and may in various ways exacerbate the problem which, under Australia's circumstances, it was designed to overcome. The PRESIDENT —Order! Honourable senators will be aware that earlier this year vacant senior positions in the Department of the Senate were advertised. Applicants for the positions have now been assessed. As a result of that process I have approved recommendations for appointments as follows: Deputy Clerk, Ms Anne Lynch; Clerks Assistant, Mr Peter O'Keeffe, Ms Michelle Cornwell and Mr Cleaver Elliott. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senators are reminded that a series of photographs of occupants of the building will be taken on the front steps of the provisional Parliament House tomorrow morning, beginning with members of the House of Representatives at 9 a.m. Senators are scheduled to be photographed at 9.30 a.m. I urge all senators to be present for this historic photograph. In the event of inclement weather, alternative arrangements will be advised to all senators. I would also like to inform the Senate that, as this will be the last period of sitting in the provisional Parliament House, the Speaker and I have arranged for a photographer to produce a photographic record of many facets of the operation of the Parliament in this building, to form part of the parliamentary archives. The project will cover many areas not normally photographed, including the chamber, dining facilities, private offices and Library and Hansard facilities. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-During Question Time, Senator Walsh attacked an aspect of the newly released transport policy of the Liberal and National parties. He claimed that the summary of the policy disclosed that the next Liberal-National Party government would be expending taxpayers' funds on the Darwin to Alice Springs railway line. He read a section from the summary which to my mind makes it perfectly clear that that is not so. I will read the section-- Senator Button —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Lewis sought leave to make a personal explanation, claiming to have been misrepresented. Nothing that Senator Walsh said can possibly be substantiated as a misrepresentation of Senator Lewis. It was about the Liberal Party's transport policy, for God's sake. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Lewis to refer to those remarks that he considers were personal. Senator LEWIS —The point about it is that it is an attack on me as a member of the Liberal Party. Senator Stone —You said that he had got it wrong. Senator LEWIS —I said that Senator Walsh had got it wrong and Senator Walsh demanded of me a personal explanation as to why I had got it wrong. That is recorded in Hansard and I am proceeding to correct that situation. Mr President, do you wish to hear further debate on the point of order? I was personally challenged. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you need further assistance on the point of order, Mr President? The PRESIDENT —No. I am listening to Senator Lewis. Senator Gareth Evans —I am sorry, Mr President, but on a point order-- Senator Button —I don't need assistance. I am in charge. Senator Gareth Evans —All right. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator LEWIS —Senator Walsh read from the summary. I said to him at the time that he could not even get that right and he then challenged me. I would like to read the exact words of the summary into Hansard. It states: To this end, a Liberal/National Government will . . . strongly support the efforts of the Northern Territory Government to facilitate completion-- Senator Button —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The standing order on which Senator Lewis is on his feet relates to a misrepresentation of him personally and a personal explanation to correct that misrepresentation. If, in the context of political debate in this chamber, every time a political party is criticised somebody says, `I am a member of that political party and it has been criticised wrongly and therefore I have been misrepresented', it will make an absurdity of the Standing Orders. That is what Senator Lewis is doing. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. The point of order is quite simple: Senator Walsh challenged me as a member of the Liberal Party when he made this statement. When I interjected that he had got it wrong he challenged me to state why he had got it wrong. That makes it a misrepresentation of me and I have no alternative but to explain to the Senate why Senator Walsh got it wrong and I got it right. That must be a reasonable personal explanation by me. The PRESIDENT —Although Senator Walsh made a personal challenge to Senator Lewis, honourable members are getting into a debate on Liberal Party policy. It is not a personal point on Senator Lewis. If the honourable senator had sought leave to make a statement, he would have been in order. At present, Senator Lewis is not in order. Senator LEWIS —I shall just finish this statement off, Mr President. I seek leave to make a statement. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Leave not granted. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper is long awaited and comes from the Government nearly three years after the Evatt Royal Commission reported on the problems of Vietnam veterans in association with agent orange. Virtually nothing has happened in three years and Vietnam veterans have waited at the end of the line for Government action. Nothing has happened. The history is somewhat longer than this and is just as disreputable because the Government, since it campaigned on this matter before the 1983 elections, has exacerbated the harm that had been done through post-traumatic disorder for Vietnam veterans and psychological effects of service in Vietnam by adding to the problems of Vietnam veterans by assuring them that it would be able to fix the situation through the Evatt Royal Commission. The Commission responded to the Government's inquiry to the effect that agent orange had no impact on the Vietnam veterans and could not be the cause of the apparent damage to the veterans at that time. Since then almost another three years have passed during which the Government dilly-dallied and dithered and could not make up its mind. In the end, it made a statement that it is not doing anything. However, I give the Government credit for picking up some of the recommendations of the Evatt Royal Commission on the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service which, I remind the Senate, was first established in January 1982 by the former Fraser Government when I was Minister. I am glad that that service will be continued by the Government because it performs as a worthwhile service not only for Vietnam veterans but also for their families. Secondly, the Opposition notes the establishment of the hostels and halfway houses as further acceptance of one of the recommendations of the Evatt Royal Commission. The Opposition welcomes that as a step forward. There appears to be no reference to other matters and consequently the Government has failed to live up to the expectations of the veterans in that regard. The Government must focus more and more attention on the condition of post-traumatic stress disorder amongst Vietnam veterans that has been caused as a result of the war. The Liberal and National parties believe that within the veteran community that difficulty is substantial and has its spin-offs and ill effects upon the members of the families of veterans as well. That is the area that demands and deserves further attention by the Government. The Opposition is disappointed that there does not appear to be greater concern about that evidenced in the Government's statement in response to the Hogg document. I conclude by saying that the Opposition will be monitoring closely the performance of the Government in this area to see what it achieves in that regard as the Opposition believes the Government has simply got it wrong in the past five or six years by dilly-dallying and dithering around with the Royal Commission and its subsequent report. The Government should get on with the process of assisting veterans, especially those with evident psychological damage. Royal Commission on Chemical Agents in Vietnam Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(3.25) —The Australian Democrats view the statement of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) of last Thursday, which now comes to the Senate as a paper, as a statement of enormous consequence. On the surface, it would seem that few are affected by the Cabinet's endorsement of the findings of the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam that agent orange is innocent. It would seem that only a handful of Vietnam veterans and their families are being told that their fears of cancers resulting from exposure to agent orange is a figment of their imaginations. They are being told to follow the example of the Minister and the Cabinet and to pay no attention to the incidence of premature death or birth mutations among them and to pay no attention to the growing body of evidence since the Evatt Royal Commission linking exposure to agent orange with cancers. As if this gross insult to Vietnam veterans and their families is not enough, it is far worse than that. All Australians should be alarmed at the Government's decision to endorse Evatt's findings. There are three profoundly significant outcomes from this Cabinet decision: first, our Vietnam veterans are not being given the support to which they are entitled in relation to the possible effects on their health of their exposure to agent orange; secondly, and most importantly, the standards of public inquiry in Australia, particularly royal commissions, which were high and well respected both here and overseas are now in absolute tatters, making it very difficult for us ever to regain the lost confidence; and, thirdly, this decision has done nothing to allay public fears of the effects on public health of widespread use of insecticides and herbicides by councils, governments, government departments and individuals. I and the Australian Democrats feel very strongly about this issue. We call upon the community at large to rebuke Cabinet for its irresponsibility on this matter. Honourable senators will be aware that many experts have been extremely critical not only of the findings but also of the methods of the Evatt Royal Commission. Indeed, the pressure became so great that the Government appointed Mr Bob Hogg, a former personal adviser to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and now National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, to conduct an independent, objective report on the adequacy or otherwise of the Commission. Bob Hogg was not impressed, and that is clear from reading his report. Despite his grave reservations and acknowledgment of the gross inadequacies of the Commission's methods, he and the Cabinet still chose to endorse the Commission's findings. It is disgraceful and irresponsible. It is appalling that our Government is prepared to accept the Evatt Royal Commission standards as Australian standards of public inquiry. It is even more tragic when one realises that the imminent release of the Meryl Streep film on the Chamberlain travesty of justice will soon reveal to the world the inadequacies of that series of inquiries and trials and will do little to boost confidence in these processes in our nation. Why are there such reservations about Evatt's methods and findings? It is now a matter of public record that the Commission plagiarised huge slices of the evidence of chemical companies. Veteran witnesses believe they were deliberately intimidated and relatively disadvantaged in legal representation. Two eminent Swedish scientists allege gross misrepresentation of their evidence and have sought compensation through direct representation to the Prime Minister and the Governor-General. Indeed, in answering a question asked by me several weeks ago, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) undertook that, at the time the Hogg report was responded to-in other words, at the time of the statement by the Minister in the House of Representatives on Thursday-it would be made clear what the Government's position is in relation to the claims of the two eminent Swedish scientists. That explanation and statement of the Government's position has not been forthcoming. By underlining and accepting the standards of the Evatt Royal Commission, the Government has left the standards of public inquiry in this nation in absolute tatters, and in the eyes of the Australian Democrats that is simply an utter disgrace. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.30) —I note both in the report of the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam and in the statement of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) the words `Agent Orange' and `not guilty'. One only needs to see those words to realise that both the Commission and the Minister have totally failed to understand properly the nature of the evidence that was before them. The chemicals that were used in Vietnam, principally 2,4,5-T and the principal contaminant in 2,4,5-T, the so-called 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzodioxane-are under consideration with respect to delayed effects and not acute toxic effects; that is, those effects which may turn up many years after the initial exposure. It is one thing to identify an agent as toxic if within a few minutes of exposure to that agent, one simply falls down dead or becomes acutely ill. If one takes a dose of cyanide and dies within 30 minutes, there is very little doubt about the relationship between the cyanide and the effect. Moreover, the symptoms are classic and easily identified. If, on the other hand, one is exposed to an agent and it is 25 or 30 years on before a genetic effect shows up, it is extremely difficult to prove that there is a link between that exposure and that effect. Equally, it is very difficult to prove that there is no effect; in fact it is impossible to do so. In relation to cancer, one is looking at an effect which has, in the technical jargon, a very large background noise. One is attempting to find an increase in cancer which exceeds statistically significantly the level of that background noise. In Australia some 20 per cent of the population will at some stage develop cancer-a very high incidence. Therefore, if we are looking at Vietnam veterans to discover whether there has been a statistically significant increase in the incidence of cancer, we require quite a large increase before we can statistically prove-I emphasise the words `statistically prove'-that that increase has been real. If there has been an increase, and the increase can be quite large, which is not statistically significant, that does not prove that the agent is not guilty, to use Evatt's term; it simply proves that an increase, if it occurs, was less than that required to establish statistical significance. As I have indicated, that increase can be quite large. Even the best conducted animal experiments under carefully controlled scientific conditions-and Vietnam was certainly not a scientific experiment under carefully controlled conditions-have difficulty in proving an increase in cancer between 10 and 100 per cent. So all we have in relation to Vietnam veterans and the incidence of cancer is that if there is an increase, it is probably less than at least a very substantial percentage increase-perhaps lying somewhere in that range between a 10 per cent and a 100 per cent increase. Of course, exactly the same goes for birth defects. Those who were exposed to genetically toxic agents at high levels may escape entirely; those who were exposed to low levels may suffer an effect. One is simply looking at a statistical probability, and in that situation it is very difficult to establish proof and impossible to establish safety. The Royal Commission misunderstood the scientific evidence, and that misunderstanding has been repeated in the Minister's statement. It is a great pity that neither the Commission nor the Minister has got it right. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.35) —I rise to speak on the Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, known as the Evatt report, and the other documents that are before us, including and especially the recommendations of what has become known as the Hogg report. I want in particular to pick up a couple of recommendations from the Hogg report which are referred to in the statement of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), which is before us today. One of those is in paragraph 19 of the Minister's statement, in which he says that he does `not propose to comment on two of Mr Hogg's proposals-for studies of agricultural workers and of women exposed to phenoxy herbicides-because of their lack of relevance to the specific issue of veterans' exposure to chemicals in Vietnam'. I would also like to refer to paragraph 22 of the Minister's statement, in which he refers to Mr Hogg's final research proposal, that the Government immediately establish an epidemiological study into the possible health effects of the anti-malarial drug dapsone, and in which we see that the Government agrees with Mr Hogg but goes on simply to refer the matter to the National Health and Medical Research Council, which will not be asked to undertake a study but which will be asked to advise on the feasibility of a study into whether dapsone is carcinogenic in man. I am speaking here today because I want to agree with the calls of Mr Hogg for these various inquiries. I and the other Australian Democrats senators believe there is ample evidence that instead of dismissing these calls, the Minister should have endorsed them and that action should be taking place. I want to put on the record some evidence of that fact. I refer first of all to an article by Kate Short in the Australian of March 1987, which is headed `Lack of records hinders probe into birth defects'. This report refers specifically to problems being experienced in the Coffs Harbour area, which are simply lack of records and lack of evidence and where there is great stress and concern felt on behalf of people in that community, particularly women. I note that the article states that reports from that area had provoked a `strong response from the chemical industry. The industry has accused the women's group of stirring up community fears about pesticides and unduly raising public alarm'. This sort of response is common and is something which only proper government sponsored studies can address. My colleague Senator Coulter has already referred to issues surrounding cancer research-the sort of twentieth-century plagues that we now have. We have got rid of the black death but we have increasing rates of cancer and the breakdown of immune systems, and there is widespread community concern. I refer to an article in the Age from June of last year which referred to Dr Colin Little, who headed at that time the allergy unit at Bethesda Hospital, Richmond, and who does a lot of excellent work in this area. It stated: . . . believes the problem of chronic exposure to pesticides is very big. He has treated at Bethesda as many as 500 patients whose immune systems may have been weakened by exposure . . . Royal Commission on Chemical Agents in Vietnam Royal Commission on Chemical Agents in Vietnam Royal Commission on Chemical Agents in Vietnam I think it is that kind of concern which has to be addressed by the sorts of specific studies that were recommended by Mr Hogg and which have been rejected in this ministerial statement. There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald just last month headed `Family claims herbicide side-effects'. The Macic family live next door to a Telecom Australia substation where 2,4-D was used regularly as a weed-killer. I received a letter just last week from a family in Tennyson, Victoria, in the Echuca area. There are pages and pages of handwritten agonising detail of the concerns that that family has about living in a rural area where herbicides, including 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D are regularly used. And the list goes on and on, both international and national. There have been reports from Indonesia and there is a report from the United States that health problems occur through the use of herbicides in all sorts of commonly eaten agricultural products. Governments and chemical companies always say that they want scientific evidence, yet I notice an article in the Science magazine, volume 239, where the chemical-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(3.40) —I can well understand the sense of outrage of the Australian Democrats at the Government's response to the report of the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, but I do not think it is well founded. I do agree with Senator Messner on the shortcomings of the report, but I turn my attention particularly to the use of defoliants. I do not think the Government's response has been made with any callous disregard for human safety factors in the use of defoliants, nor with disregard to the evidence that has been produced all around the world. Very thorough research has been done. The Government is concentrating on areas concerned with the long term effects of these chemicals. No-one can tell too much about the long term effects of these chemical agents, but they have been used for a long time. In Australia they have been used for nearly 30 years. Many people have been exposed to them to an enormous degree, particularly pilots spraying crop areas. The way pilots used to spray crop areas was to have a giant drum of the defoliant perched on the engine of the aeroplane in front of the cockpit. The pilots were drenched with the stuff day after day for a long time. So they had excessive exposure. Many pilots were involved in that spraying. We have no record of their having suffered deleterious effects. If they had suffered deleterious effects they would have gone to their doctors. Our former Premier, Sir Bjelke-Petersen, used a lot of defoliant, and he did not suffer any bad effects from it. Senator Coulter started to describe the various effects of these chemicals. The side effects of drugs are well known. For example, if one takes an antihistamine one will get drowsy. The toxic effects of drugs are also well known. If one has an overdose of aspirin one will get ringing in the ears. But allergic effects are completely unpredictable and unknown. By now, some such effects would have been found with 2,4,5-T. But none have been recorded. The particularly deleterious effects that have been mentioned, the dermatological, neurological and psychological complications, have not been recorded. In addition, the neoplastic effects, the carcinogenic effects, the effects on the blood or the genetic effects have not been substantiated. It is frightening for people to hear these issues raised when all the responsible bodies around the world are doing their utmost to find out whether there are any effects. Nobody wants our Vietnam veterans to be treated in a shabby fashion. If there were doubt, they would be given the benefit of that doubt. But when we take account all the evidence we have to go on, we must concede that the Government has taken a responsible attitude and given a proper and authoritative response to the Royal Commission's report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(3.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In speaking to the eleventh report of the Local Government Grants Commission, Queensland, on financial assistance for local government, I acknowledge the need for financial assistance to local government. Reading through the report, I noticed on page 2 that in future local authorities are to receive grants quarterly. The local authorities are probably not very happy about that. They have found it useful to get their grants in a lump sum. They were then able to earn interest on the money. As I said, now the Commonwealth Government has decided that these grants are to be made in equal quarterly instalments. But I suppose that the local authorities must be grateful indeed that they are to get the grants outlined in the report. The statistics in the report show tremendous growth and development in Queensland. The population is increasing all the time. Starting on page 7 of the report is a tremendously long list of grants made by the Government to the various local authorities. I went through them and found that 62 local authorities in Queensland will get more money, whereas 72 local authorities will receive less. The amount that the State recommended for 1987-88 has been decreased by $1,004,000. In other words, grants to local authorities are certainly less than the State calculation. The Local Government Grants Commission, Queensland, is made up of excellent men who know their work well. Mr Palmer, the Chairman, was a local authority shire clerk in Longreach for many years. Sir Leo Hielscher has just retired as the Under-Treasurer in Queensland. Mr Hollindale is probably known for his connection with the Gold Coast Turf Club. Senator Colston —All socialists, by the sound of it. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I would say so. That is probably why they brought out such a good report. Councillor McIntosh comes from Kilkivan Shire, which was one of the shires in my husband's electorate for many years, and Councillor White comes from north Queensland. It is a worthwhile report. There is a great need for more money for local authorities. I made a speech in this chamber just last week detailing the need for more money for roads. Senator Tate —You want more money and less taxes. It is impossible. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That is right. I am sure that everybody in Australia would agree. I am not quite sure how the Government is going to work it but it would be nice for everybody if it could. We will always look forward to a miracle from this Government but I doubt very much whether we will get it. The Local Government Association of Queensland recently had a conference, not only of local authority representatives but of all people concerned about the need for more money for roads. That is a cry that is going up all the time. I can understand the Government feeling worried about organisations always saying that they need more money. But if only the Government would give back 7c of the excise that is paid on every litre of fuel it would provide an increased amount of money for roads. It is certainly something that local authorities are concerned about. Roads are very important lines of communication. If the Government were able to provide more money for roads in the coming May statement everybody would be happy, particularly local government. Obviously, however, we will not get that money. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(3.49) —I share Senator Bjelke-Petersen's disappointment at the Government's response to the local government funding issue. I notice that the report of the Local Government Grants Commission, Queensland, is on `financial assistance' for local government. I am sorry that local government needs this assistance. It should not need it at all. If funding arrangements for local government were full and proper it would not need the assistance. This particularly applies to Queensland, which this report is about. Senator Tate, interjecting on Senator Bjelke-Petersen, decried the fact that one could have more funding and fewer taxes. He might think that is impossible but if the Government reduced taxes it would increase the size of the cake for everybody and there would be more money. High taxes are causing people not to earn sufficient-- Senator Bjelke-Petersen —A single rate of tax. Senator SHEIL —That is right. A single rate of tax would solve the whole problem. I point out that when Ralph Hunt was Minister for that area he introduced the 2 per cent funding for local government and also the 2 per cent of personal income tax for local government. If we just look at the personal income tax figure we see that it rose to 2 per cent for some years, particularly under Mr Fraser, but under the Hawke Government it has gone down. I think it is now 1.6 per cent and it will be even less next year. This has resulted in a snowfall of correspondence in just about every senator's office begging for and praying for help with regard to funding, particularly for roads. Of course, roads are perhaps the most important function of local government because they are an instrument for the development of the country and they are being sadly neglected at the moment. I was pleased that Senator Bjelke-Petersen was also able to make a speech on the plight of our roads because if they get in a bad state not only do they attenuate development in the country but also they damage our cars. I am disappointed that the Government has had to provide additional assistance when there should be no need for it at all. The Government should fulfill its obligations and give local government the proper funding which it should receive. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BURNS(Queensland) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act I present a report regarding the relocation of the Albion Explosives Factory to Mulwalla, New South Wales. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.52) —I table the revised explanatory memorandum and move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator TATE —It is not very helpful when we have referendum Bills of very great importance to be deliberated on by the chamber. Nevertheless, as one voice has been raised against my incorporating the second reading speech, I shall read it. Much of the Bill is devoted to improving the requirements of the taxation law that deal with the registration of tax agents. A substantial number of other matters are also dealt with. The income tax law will be amended as foreshadowed to restrict eligibility for the special depreciation allowances available for Australian trading ships. Tax deductibility is being extended to payments made under cash bidding systems for offshore petroleum exploration permits and production licences. Practical aspects of application of the foreign tax credit system are being modified and some unintended consequences and technical deficiencies corrected. Anti-avoidance provisions of the thin capitalisation rules are to be strengthened to ensure that foreign investments in Australia maintain an appropriate balance between debt and equity funding. The Bill also increases the pensioner rebate for service pensioners for the current year, and includes changes to the taxing arrangements for certain educational allowances and similar allowances and for the carer's pension. Registration of Tax Agents In the interests of both the revenue and the taxpayer, it is important that a person who charges a fee for conducting income tax business on behalf of a taxpayer has the appropriate knowledge of Australian income tax law and of accounting principles and is otherwise a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the responsibility of conducting a person's income tax business. The income tax law therefore prohibits a person, partnership or company from charging a fee for preparing an income tax return, or transacting any business relating to income tax matters unless registered as a tax agent, or exempted from registration, by a tax agents' board. The provisions that deal with the registration of tax agents have remained relatively unchanged since they were first enacted in 1943. The amendments being made by this Bill will substantially modernise and improve the provisions and give effect to a number of recommendations made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Administrative Review Council, accounting firms and the boards themselves. Interested parties were consulted as part of the drafting process and have indicated general support for the proposed measures. In response to criticisms of the existing provisions by the Administrative Review Council and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Bill will extend the range of decisions of a tax agents' board in respect of which a person may make application to the tribunal for review. In order to achieve a desirable degree of uniformity between decisions of the six State boards and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Bill will provide a more objective test as to who is a suitable person to be registered as a tax agent or as a nominee, and will enable eligibility criteria to be prescribed. Also in response to a recommendation of the Tribunal, the Bill will give the boards a general power to suspend the registration of a tax agent in addition to the power of cancellation. Under the existing law, company tax agents may register suitably qualified employees as nominees. Partnership tax agents, however, may only register partners as nominees while sole practitioners may not register nominees at all. Partnership and sole practitioner tax agents have expressed concern that the inability to register employees as nominees increases the workload of the principals and can impede the timely lodgment of returns. To overcome these concerns partnership and individual tax agents are to be permitted to register suitably qualified employees as nominees. The ability of a company to gain registration as a tax agent on the basis of the qualifications of an employee-who need not be a director, shareholder or even a full time employee of the company-has led to exploitation by some unqualified persons. The Bill will therefore tighten the rules for registration as a company tax agent by requiring that shares carrying at least 25 per cent of the voting power in a company applying for registration be beneficially owned by a director or directors having the necessary qualifications to be registered as a tax agent. The $2 fee payable on lodgment of an application for registration as a tax agent or as a nominee of a registered tax agent has not changed since 1943 and is considerably less than those payable for broadly comparable professional registrations. The Bill will increase the fee to $80. The existing law requires tax agents to notify the board by 1 April each year if they wish to remain registered. The Bill replaces the annual notification requirement with a requirement to re-register each three years and introduce a re-registration fee of $40 plus $5 per nominee. The fees have been set at a level that will recover the costs of operating the tax agents' boards and will be subject to regular review. Other amendments will provide for continuation of a partnership registration following a change in constitution of the partnership, effect changes in the composition of the tax agents' boards and make a number of minor technical and drafting amendments of the tax agents' provisions. Special Depreciation for Australian Trading Ships As announced on 2 April 1987, the Government has decided to restrict eligibility for the special accelerated depreciation concession for Australian trained ships to new ships that qualify under the Federal Government's scheme of capital grants for such ships. Under the Ships (Capital Grants) Act 1987 the Federal Government pays a taxable grant of 7 per cent of the purchase price of eligible Australian trading ships as an incentive to ship operators to purchase modern, efficient and technologically advanced ships. The Bill will restrict eligibility for special depreciation, from 22 December 1986-the date from which the capital grants scheme applies-to new ships that both satisfy the present eligibility criteria in the income tax law and qualify for a capital grant. Ships which do not qualify for a grant but which, on 22 December 1986, had either been given a manning notice under section 57am of the Income Tax Assessment Act or were the subject of an application for such a notice, will continue to be eligible for special depreciation. The amendments will also disallow the special depreciation if a grant becomes repayable. Cash Bids As announced on 17 September 1986, the Bill will extend the scope of the income tax deductions allowable for cash bids paid for the grant of offshore petroleum exploration permits. The income tax law was amended in 1987 to allow deductions for cash bids paid to the Commonwealth, under its cash bidding system introduced in 1985, for the grant of petroleum exploration permits in highly prospective areas. This ensured that Australian companies would not be disadvantaged in the bidding process in competing with foreign companies that could obtain deductions under their domestic law for their cash bids. When the amendments were introduced, the Government announced that it also proposed further amendments of the income tax law to allow deductions under other Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory cash bidding systems. The amendments to be made by this Bill will allow deductions for cash bids paid for exploration permits and production licences under the Commonwealth's combined cash bidding and work program system which was included in the offshore petroleum legislation in 1967. Senator Haines —Why are you reading this? Senator TATE —I am reading it because the Opposition requires me to. I am sorry that it sounds so dull and boring. This combined cash bidding-work program system can only apply in circumstances where a previous production licence is discontinued or where a production licence application for a permit is not finalised and the relevant permit is given up. Deductibility will also be extended to cash bids paid under State and Northern Territory cash bidding systems that are equivalent to the Commonwealth's systems. Consistent with the existing tax law, cash bid payments will be written off on a straight line basis over the lesser of 10 years or the life of the producing field to which the permit or licence relates. Write-off for cash bids will commence in the income year in which a production licence is first acquired in respect of the relevant permit area or at the time cash bid payments are made, whichever is the later. This should not have any cost to revenue over the next three years and revenue effects beyond that are dependent on when production licences are granted under cash bidding arrangements. The amendments will apply in respect of cash bids paid on or after 15 January 1986, the date of the original announcement to allow tax deductibility for cash bids paid under the Commonwealth cash bidding system introduced in 1985. Foreign Tax Credit System Amendments are being made to the foreign tax credit provisions to modify the practical operation of the system in relation to creditable foreign taxes and the treatment of overseas employment income of Australian resident individuals. The Bill will also correct some technical deficiencies in the law relating to the quarantining of foreign losses, the treatment of certain dividends as interest income as part of the interest quarantining measures, the amendment of credit determinations and the transfer of excess credits within wholly-owned company groups. Those amendments to the foreign tax credit system which are of a concessional nature are to apply from the commencement of the 1987-88 year of income. Other amendments will apply prospectively from the commencement of the 1988-89 year of income. The changes will have negligible effect on revenue in 1987-88 but may produce some unquantifiable revenue savings in subsequent years. The Government has under consideration a number of other foreign tax credit matters which if requiring legislative action will be the subject of a further Bill. Thin Capitalisation The thin capitalisation rules applying to foreign investments in Australia are to be varied in two particular areas. An amendment to the definition of foreign debt in relation to partnerships and trusts will close off an avenue for avoidance otherwise available to overseas investors who are not themselves partners or beneficiaries. The amendment will ensure that these investors are subject to the rules. The second amendment will modify the effect of an equity maintenance requirement that has a potentially broader application than intended. The redrafted provision will affect a much smaller group of investors than the present law. Under the thin capitalisation rules the level of foreign equity in an Australian investment is generally measured annually. An equity maintenance requirement ensures that equity that is introduced in a year of income to comply with a debt-equity ratio rule is not removed in either of the two years of income following its introduction. Where the equity is prematurely removed the anti-avoidance measure treats that equity as if it had never been introduced. The present rule could apply wherever equity is removed regardless of how long it has been in place. For resident companies the modified rule will apply to shares introduced in a year of income to ensure that they are maintained for the two subsequent years of income. For other forms of foreign investment the equity maintenance rule will apply where the level of equity is increased in a year of income and will operate to ensure that that level is maintained for the two succeeding years of income. Where the newly introduced equity is not maintained for the required period a lower level of equity will be substituted in debt-equity ratio calculations and may be reflected in an adjustment to related deductions for interest payments. The amended provisions, which will operate from the commencement of the 1989 year of income, should have negligible impact on the revenue. Rebate for Service Pensioners The income tax law will be amended to increase the amount of the rebate of tax, known as the pensioner rebate, available for service pensioners. The rebate will be increased for the 1987-88 income year from $250 to $308 so as to ensure that no income tax is payable by service pensioners if their taxable income does not exceed $6,384. The rebate will shade out at the rate of 12.5c for each dollar of taxable income in excess of $6,384, cutting out completely for a service pensioner with a 1987-88 taxable income in excess of $8,847. In the current year, there will be 27 fortnightly paydays for service pensioners instead of the usual 26. But for this amendment, certain service pensioners whose sole source of income is their pension would become liable to pay income tax. The amendment means that a service pensioner in receipt of the single rate pension can receive additional private income of up to $3.70 a week and not pay tax. The level of the pensioner rebate available for social security pensioners will not be changed by this amendment. The estimated cost of the change is $17m in 1988-89. Educational Allowances As part of the Government's strategy to increase young people's access to employment, education and training, the Government has made a number of changes over the past three years to rationalise and improve youth income support programs. One of the changes has been to the education assistance available under the Aboriginal secondary assistance scheme and the Aboriginal study assistance scheme to bring the assistance more into line with that provided under Austudy, the main Commonwealth scheme for community-wide educational assistance. Consistent with the taxation treatment of Austudy payments, this Bill will make taxable from 1 January 1988 payments for students aged 16 years or more under the Aboriginal secondary assistance scheme and payments under the Aboriginal study assistance scheme. The Bill will also extend the availability of the beneficiary rebates to affected students for the 1988-89 and subsequent income years. The purpose of the beneficiary rebate is to ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on certain social security benefits or education allowances do not have to pay income tax. The availability of the beneficiary rebates is also being extended to formal training allowance recipients for the 1987-88 and subsequent income years. The changes relating to the Aboriginal study assistance scheme and the Aboriginal secondary assistance scheme are expected to result in a gain of $0.5m in a full year while the formal training allowance charge is expected to cost $2.5m in 1988-89. Carer's Pension Before 1 February 1988 a carer's pension was payable to a relative of a severely handicapped age or invalid pensioner where the relative provided constant care and attention to the handicapped pensioner in the home of the relative and the pensioner. The pension was exempt from income tax where both the carer and the handicapped pensioner were below age pension age; if either were of pension age, the carer's pension was taxable. From 1 February, the carer's pension has also been available to a person caring for a severely handicapped age or invalid pensioner but who is not a relative. The effect has been to exempt the carer's pension from income tax where a person who is not a relative and is below age pension age cares for a handicapped pensioner of age pension age. As this is inconsistent with the treatment of the carer's pension when paid to a carer who is a relative, that particular exemption is to be removed, with effect from the date of enactment of the Bill. This will ensure that the tax treatment of the carer's pension is determined without regard to whether the carer is related to the person cared for. The revenue gain is expected to be negligible. Technical Amendments The Bill will also make a substantial number of minor technical amendments to the income tax law and certain other laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation. These amendments will have no effect on revenue. An explanatory memorandum which comprehensively explains the measures contained in this Bill is being circulated for the information of honourable senators. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. The Act provides for the level of charges to be paid by owners of vehicles registered under the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985. The charges recover road wear costs of vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce. The Bill enables registration charges in excess of $1000 to be set for vehicles operating with a gross combination mass exceeding 38 tonnes. This is required to offset the extra costs of road wear caused by the operation of these vehicles. The $1000 limit for other classes of vehicles remains. The Bill should be read in conjunction with the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988 and is to come into effect on the same day as that Bill, 1 July 1988. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The amendments proposed in the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1988 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1988 will enable the Federal Government to implement its part of a second package of reforms for the Australian road transport industry. This Government is the only government in Australia's history to have attended to the problems of our national road freight industry. Since it initiated the National Road Freight Inquiry in 1983, chaired by Mr Tom May, the Labor Government has worked closely with State and Territory Governments and the road transport industry to provide sensible and productive reforms. We have introduced significant efficiencies to the industry, improved its safety and recognised the difficulties faced by many truckies. We will continue to develop these reforms which will have major flow-on to the needs of Australian industry as a whole, to our economy, and our international trade. Transport is a major sector in the Australian economy. It accounts for about 17% of Australia's GDP, with the road transport sector contributing about $16 billion per year to value-added output on 7.5% of GDP. Transport costs make up over 40% of the final product price for the mining industry, between 6 and 12% for primary products and 13% for manufacturing. Road transport costs typically account for around 5% of product costs in the more trade-exposed parts of the manufacturing sector. Road transport will continue to play a predominant role in the Australian economy. By the year 2000 total road use is expected to be about 60% above the 1985 level. People often forget the geographic size of our country. They forget the distances over which our raw materials have to be carried, and too often make specious comparisons attempting to focus on transport costs as a scape-goat for their competitive position. We know there are efficiencies to be gained and over the last five years we have achieved much with shipping costs, with our railways (particularly Australian National), and with road freight. Our road freight industry is in fact one of our most competitive industries and internationally we are renowned for our trucking expertise. The May Report has provided a blue-print for the development of the industry. The first set of reforms based on the Report was the fast-track package of reforms which commenced on 1 January 1987. Central to the fast-track package was the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme which was established under the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. This Scheme provides for the registration of vehicles engaged solely in interstate trade and commerce and the payment of reasonable registration charges which recover the cost of road wear. On the initiative of this Government, State and Territory Ministers endorsed the second-stage package at the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) Ministerial meeting last December. The reforms are being introduced co-operatively by Federal, State and Territory Governments and have the strong support of industry. The package comprises increasing the national speed limit for heavy vehicles in non-urban areas to 100 km/h, revising driving hours in the eastern mainland States to reflect more realistically modern Australian conditions, introducing revised registration charges and new registration categories providing for higher and nationally uniform load limits under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. The increase in the heavy vehicle speed limit to 100 km/h outside built up areas will improve safety by removing the disparity between truck and car speeds. This will reduce the need for overtaking, which has been identified as a major road safety problem. The move to this limit follows an interim increase to 90km/h which was evaluated over twelve months. The results of this evaluation showed there had been no adverse road safety implications from the increase to 90km/h. The introduction of uniform revised driving hours arrangements along the eastern mainland seaboard acknowledges the realities of modern vehicle design, today's road conditions and existing practices. Overall weekly driving hours will increase only slightly but more flexibility is provided to meet the varying needs of different operators. Driving hours will be enforced by an enhanced log book system, with the alternative option of approved tachographs. The impact of the new speed limit and revised driving hours will be closely monitored and enforced. ATAC Ministers called on the road transport industry to demonstrate a responsible attitude to the introduction of the new package. Industry associations support the concept of realistic enforcement. The industry supports the reform package. The changes to the Federal legislation will provide for new vehicles categories to be introduced under the Federal Registration Scheme to allow Federally registered vehicles to operate at higher mass limits. This arrangement will obviate the need for the existing vehicle mass permit schemes in New South Wales and Victoria for Federally registered vehicles. For the first time Federally registered vehicles will be able to operate at a uniform limit across Australia. The registration charges to apply from 1 July 1988 for vehicles registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme were announced on 26 April 1988. The revised charges are a further step in pursuing our commitment to allowing truck owners to make a fair contribution to maintaining our road infrastructure. They include the new classes of vehicles operating at higher mass limits. In determining the charges, consideration has been given to the Inter-State Commission's 1987 Review of Federal Registration Charges for Interstate Vehicles. Money collected from registration charges will continue to be returned to State and Territory Governments for the maintenance and upkeep of roads used by Federally registered vehicles. Let me now turn to the individual amendments. The principal amendment in the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill provides for new registration categories to be established to enable vehicles to operate at mass limits up to 42.5 tonnes under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. To implement the higher mass limits a specific regulatory power has been used. In addition a general regulatory power for vehicle operating standards has also been inserted into the Act allowing us to implement a smoking ban on Federal interstate buses and coaches. This will also enable us to act quickly to achieve further reforms for the industry in the future. The smoking ban was agreed to by Federal State Ministers and will complement similar State legislation to be introduced during 1988. Clause 12 provides the general regulation making power covering vehicle operating standards which will be used to implement this ban. The provisions are in line with the ban on smoking on commercial passenger aircraft which commenced on 1 December 1987. Let me emphasise that at this stage the regulation making powers will only apply to new regulations for the control of mass limits and to implement the ban on smoking in interstate buses and coaches. The continued willingness of States to implement jointly agreed reforms will mean that the general use of these regulatory powers should be minimal. Clause 6 clears the way to introduce increased mass limit for Federally registered vehicles and Clause 5 expressly exempts Federal vehicles from the need to obtain a State permit for operating at the higher mass limits. Consequential amendments are required to the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act. They will enable the Government to set registration charges to offset the extra costs of road wear for 42.5 tonne vehicles. The charge for vehicles over 38 tonnes is $3135. The legislation will set a charge limit of $5000 for these vehicles. Any increase above this limit would require an amendment to the legislation. The $1000 limit for other classes of vehicles will be retained. The remaining minor amendments are of an administrative nature and are required to streamline operations for the benefit of both the State authorities which administer the Registration Scheme and the users-the road transport industry. The Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill provides for the amendments to come into force on 1 July 1988. State Ministers of the Australian Transport Advisory Council have accepted this introduction date. The net budgetary impact of these amendments will be nil. All registration charges will be paid into the Interstate Road Transport Trust Fund and will continue to be fully distributed to the States and Territories. All administrative costs incurred by State and Territory authorities administering the scheme are met through the levying of fees. No additional staffing requirements or administration will arise for the Federal Department of Transport and Communications. The charges for vehicles in the new categories will be offset by increased efficiency and productivity for the road transport industry. Bus and coach industry organisations claim the ban on smoking will reduce maintenance costs. The reforms being realised in the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bills reflect the importance of road transport for the Australian economy. They are another constructive step towards achieving the Government's goal of restructuring the economy; part of the Government's micro-economic reform package for achieving an efficient transport industry. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Senator Tate, and from 23 September 1987, on motion by Senator Macklin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —I propose that the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988 and the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987 be debated cognately with the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988 and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Is it the wish of the Senate that these Bills be taken cognately? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Motion (by Senator Tate)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Macklin, and the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, speaking for up to one hour in the debate. Constitution Alteration Legislation Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.09) —The Senate is now commencing what I think is the most serious debate that we are likely to have to undertake during the current calendar year, because it relates to proposals to alter the Australian Constitution, not merely once, but in four separate propositions that are being put forward in the four Government Bills, the titles of which have just been read by the Deputy Clerk. In addition, we are debating cognately a proposal for an electors' initiative which has been put forward by the Australian Democrats. That matter will be dealt with at the same time as the other Bills. The debate is important because the Government has put forward a series of propositions which, on their face, have won a lot of support from commentators in particular and it is the Opposition's view that the approach which the Government had adopted in bringing these matters forward is quite dishonest and certainly utterly misleading. The debate takes place after a careful process of propaganda or education, according to one's point of view, undertaken by the Government through its establishment of the Constitutional Commission. Without any doubt the Government was hoping to capitalise upon the birthday atmosphere of the Bicentenary to achieve some of its long-term political objectives. We believe that the four Bills that we are debating-I talk about those principally rather than the Australian Democrats proposal which is being dealt with cognately-have a number of effects which the Government has sought to hide. For a start, the proposals increase the power of the Prime Minister. They do that by giving him even more flexibility as to when he may call an election. Most serious from the point of view of the Australian community and this chamber, the first proposal is an attack on the role of the Senate and its constitutional function. For that reason that proposal is bitterly opposed by the Opposition. The proposals would reduce the local autonomy of the people. They would not, as the Government has suggested, give power to the people. I think we can demonstrate in this debate that they would reduce the local autonomy of the people of Australia. They give new and measurable powers not to the people of Australia but to the judges of Australia. The proposals are internally inconsistent and hypocritical and we totally reject the basis which the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, put as the basis of these changes in the second reading speech on the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill last Thursday. I personally would endorse one paragraph of that second reading speech, and I shall quote it. Senator Tate said: The basic building blocks of our Parliamentary system are firmly in place; the edifice of the Australian federation, its basic principles of responsible and representative government, upheld by our judicial system, are not under challenge. He went on to quote the words of the Constitutional Commission in its first report. I wish to repeat just some of those words. The Constitutional Commission said: In particular, we have been conscious of the need to retain in form and spirit the federal framework of government in Australia, parliamentary government and democratic institutions. That is claimed by Senator Tate to be the basis upon which these propositions are put forward, that we are to retain in form and spirit the federal framework of government in Australia, parliamentary government and democratic institutions. In the view of the Opposition that is precisely the opposite of the truth. Senator Tate went on to say: I trust it will be in that spirit that this Parliament, and then the people of Australia, will approach one of the greatest responsibilities and opportunities enjoyed by a free and independent people-the task of making and amending their own Constitution, under which we all live, in this generation and for the generations to come. It is certainly the view of the Opposition that it must approach this batch of Bills bearing in mind that they relate to the making and amending of the Constitution and that they will affect not merely this generation but the generations to come. The Government has put an extraordinarily benign view, an almost status quo view, on these Bills. Yet other people take a quite contrary view. I was struck by the view which was expressed by Mr Ewart Smith, who from having been a little known but very senior member of the Attorney-General's Department over many years rocketed to prominence with his opinion and views on the identity card legislation and his discovery of the loophole in that legislation which led to its ultimate destruction. Mr Ewart Smith is a former constitutional adviser to successive Federal governments and a former Deputy Secretary of the Federal Attorney-General's Department. He has a very different view of the referendum proposals from that put forward by Senator Tate on behalf of the Government. In an opinion which I have, Mr Smith said: The four proposals being put by the Government to referendum later in the year contain the greatest threat to the established institutions of our Federation ever put by a Government. We are being asked to accept them with overtones which suggest that it is somehow in accordance with the spirit of the Bicentenary year to do so: it is almost unpatriotic to refuse them! We in the Opposition see these changes in the same terms as Mr Smith, as a threat to the established institutions of our Federation. I find that it is not just Mr Smith who is sceptical of what the Government is doing. In the weekend Press there was a column written by Mr Paddy McGuinness, who I think is well known in this place as a commentator on social and economic issues. He said: The Australian Constitution, on which our federation is based, with all its faults, is a robust and reasonably well-constructed basic law, which protects our democracy in a way which other countries can only envy. It has contributed much to the stability of our political system. Just a paragraph or so later he said: The Federal Government is being very dishonest in its approach to the proposed referendum on constitutional amendments. It is also being quite unjustifiably hasty about the whole thing-itself a reason for suspicion. So it will be only its own fault if even the defensible amendments are defeated. The Opposition does not agree with Mr McGuinness that any of the amendments are defensible but I quoted him because he writes as someone who is not necessarily opposed to all the propositions that the Government has put forward, but he is certainly opposed to the way in which this matter is being approached by the Government. He went on to make a point which has been made very strongly by the Opposition over recent times. He said: The questions actually being asked are quite misleading. Here is what they really ought to be: I quote them not because I necessarily agree with everything that has been said by Mr McGuinness but because they show that a totally independent observer, someone outside politics but a keen observer of the Australian legal, political and economic scene, comes up with a set of questions which bear very little relationship to what is being put in questions to the people of Australia by this Government. Mr McGuinness said the first question is: Do you agree to weakening the power and status of the Senate? That is the question which the Government should be posing if it wants this proposal to be honestly considered by the people of Australia. His version of the second referendum question is: Do you want to stop the National Party gerrymandering electoral boundaries, especially in Queensland? I might reject that as a fair putting of the question but I simply quote it as an example of how very different is Mr McGuinness's view of the question as compared with the Government's. Mr McGuinness suggests that the question on the recognition of local government should be: Do you want to cater to the vanity of local government politicians and make it more difficult to reform corrupt local government? Again, that is a very different view from the one I would express but that is Mr McGuinness's version of the question which should flow from this legislation. Finally, he says that question four should read: Do you want to confirm rights of freedom of religion, trial by jury and compensation for property without bothering about any other human rights? So we have from Mr McGuinness a thoroughly critical assessment of what the Government is about, both as to its honesty and as to its accuracy. He finishes by saying that what the Parliament should be debating is a whole new approach to constitutional reform rather than wasting another $30m on a referendum. The last person I wish to quote as an outside observer who has had comments to make about the honesty or otherwise of the Government's approach to constitutional reform is Mr Morgan, who as the head of the Morgan Gallup Poll organisation is one of the most well known Australians in the field of public opinion polling. He said that any public opinion polling company which asks questions `as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility'. There is some guffawing by the officials advising the Minister. If they wish to participate in this debate I hope they might get themselves elected to the Senate, or ejected from the Senate as the case might be. However, if they wish to be participants in this place they might let us know and we might see what can be done to amend the Standing Orders to allow it. Let me say that I do not blame the officials for this pathetic attempt to hoodwink the people of Australia but if the behaviour of the advisers in the box is an indication that the Attorney-General's Department is implicated in this exercise, I can only say that the Public Service of Australia has reached a very sorry state indeed. To return to the matters of this debate, the dishonesty of the Government in the questions it has put is borne out by the fact that it spent $6m on having a Constitutional Commission, a clear part of the function of which was to soften up the Australian people to the whole idea of constitutional change. I do not make any allegation against the character of those people who accepted appointment as commissioners; nor do I challenge their right to put views, having been put in that position by the Government. I simply remind the people of Australia that a substantial part of the budget of this organisation has gone in publicising the very idea of constitutional change and that we have in some ways an inherently defective constitution. That, in our view, is not the truth. The Constitution is not inherently defective. Sometimes the way elements of it are used may not be what the people want, but that is not the fault of the Constitution. We had a $6m public relations exercise. The fact that it is no more than a public relations exercise is borne out by the simple reality that the Government did not even wait for the final report of the Commission before determining what matters it would put forward as constitutional amendments. What more obvious demonstration could we have of the dishonesty of this approach than that the Government had to hasten some sort of preliminary recommendations out of the Commission so that that could have any temporal relationship with the propositions being put forward by the Government-and the Government is not even putting forward propositions which uniformly reflect even that preliminary view of the Commission, because what the Commission has said about the fundamental proposal that there should be a change to the parliamentary term and a change to the fundamental position of the Senate is quite different from what the Government is proposing. I accuse the Government of engaging in a charade and pretence. It has enlisted distinguished Australians to lend their names and minds to an exercise which, the Government has made quite clear, was an exercise not in achieving national agreement as to the changes needed to the Constitution but, rather, it has used those people to achieve a climate for change. We should not be surprised at the dishonesty the Government has shown. We have had to use the authority of this Senate in the past to prevent a fraud upon the electorate, a fraud which was attempted by Senator Evans when he was Attorney-General. Senator Evans, in 1983, wished to bring forward constitutional amendments. He faced a situation in which it had been the established procedures for the publishing of constitutional amendments that there should be equal public expenditure on the Yes and No cases. It is a feature of our approach to constitutional change that every elector in the Commonwealth receives at taxpayers'-Commonwealth-expense a document setting out the Yes and No cases. The Government, which is usually the proponent of constitutional change, does not control the state of the No case. The content of the No case on the pamphlet is controlled by those people who have opposed the referendum. It is a carefully designed and balanced approach which is aimed to ensure fairness, the word the Government continually uses about these referendum proposals. We have a procedure aimed at ensuring that, in a fair way, all people are advised of the pros and the cons-the case for Yes and the case for No. Senator Evans, in 1983, set out to breach that arrangement by obtaining $1.25m of taxpayers' money, not to spend on publicising both sides of the argument, but to arrange publicity for the Yes case, which he wished to promote. It was because of the opposition of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats who were not prepared to see that perversion of the system, that we were able to prevent it. Senator Evans said that we were engaged in what he described as a classic demonstration of crude political opportunism. It just shows how debate in politics in this country is debased when a Minister who sets out to frustrate and thwart the procedures for constitutional change, and who is defeated by this Senate in his attempt to be quite duplicitous with the Australian people, accuses us of crude political opportunism. I mention that because it is a very good indication of the attitude of the Australian Labor Party to these matters. The other general comment I wish to make is that in our assessment of the Government's motive in bringing these matters forward and its genuine objective, we take note of the attitudes which have been expressed so often by Labor Party spokesmen, including the leading members of the Labor Party in the Senate, about the role of the Senate. We enter into this debate knowing that it is the fundamental objective of the most senior members of the Labor Party in this place to see the role and influence of the Senate reduced, if not destroyed. The Labor Party may have taken out of its formal policy and platform documents the absolute destruction of the Senate but I remind honourable senators that Senator Evans made no secret when he came to this place of his contempt for it and his determination to work from within to destroy it. That quotation is too well known to need repeating. Senator Evans said here that the best way to deal with the Senate was to work from within to destroy its powers. We know what Senator Walsh thinks of it. He is reported to have said that the Senate: is the biggest institutional obstacle to economic adjustment and reform. He says: The ill-informed sabotage of rational policy was a threat to responsible government. He talks of the Government having to: rely on the support of minor parties or single issue zealots- he is referring there to the Australian Democrats, presumably, and the Independents- none of whom will ever be burdened with the discipline or responsibility of government. He made other very uncomplimentary remarks about the Senate, referring to comments of one of his colleagues about us being the swill of Australian politics. He referred with approval to Paul Keating's succinct assessment of the Senate as the repository of the `swill of Australian politics'. To have senators defending the Senate is to have the less important defenders, because we might be seen to speak from self-interest. I can only say that experts who sought to thrust upon the people the Bill of Rights and the identity card no doubt see that destruction of those proposals as an indication of our poor quality. For all I know, the giggling advisers may be in that category. But those people who over a period of months of debate and explanation of what was being done came to realise that the proposal was not in their interests, as they had once thought, because there were elements they had not clearly understood on the face of the proposal, will remember the value of the Senate. Those same people who saw that what the Government was proposing was not what it seemed will again come to the defence of the Senate. I expect that the fundamental hatred by people of this place, which flows in part from the events of 1975 but mainly from the whole objection, on the part of those who believe that executive government knows best, to the idea that a House of Parliament should dare to interfere with the actions of executive government, has motivated these constitutional changes and, in particular, the first constitutional proposal. Those of us who believe that the people of Australia are entitled to representative institutions that will ensure that there is proper and full debate on the proposals of the Executive, stand in solid opposition to them. I also want to say that, if we are trying to assess the honesty or integrity of purpose of the Government in bringing forward these constitutional changes, it is important to note that no serious attempt was made by the Government to achieve any bipartisan support. Again, it went through a charade. The Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke, and his Deputy, the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, had a discussion with Mr Howard which, as I understand it from the description Mr Howard has given in the Parliament, focused on the issue of the change to the terms of Parliament. Mr Howard made it clear that, whilst supporting a four-year term, we would not in any way support a proposal which at the same time was aimed at the destruction of the Senate. Four hours after that discussion, which included the Government raising an alternative possibility of a five-year term, the Government announced its proposals. We say that if the Government were genuinely interested in achieving a bipartisan position there would have been a more genuine attempt than that to arrive at some common ground. I will turn to the specific Bills which we are to deal with in this cognate debate. The first is the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill. The full title of that Bill is `An Act to alter the Constitution to provide for four year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament'. As I have already indicated in my preliminary comments, in fact the Bill has a much wider import. The effect of this Bill is to permit a permanent double dissolution arrangement. It effectively permits the Prime Minister at any time to call for the dissolution of the whole of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. There is, therefore, a massive increase in prime ministerial power to call early elections and certainly to call elections which affect the Senate. As a necessary by-product of that, the Bill means an end to the rotation of senators. Since Federation it has been a feature of the Senate that only half the Senate is elected in a normal election. That is a procedure that was put in place to ensure that the Senate would not be prey to sudden shifts of political opinion. Effectively, that element of the Senate would be brought to an end if this proposal were brought forward. The proposition also means an end to the fixed terms of senators. At the moment, subject only to the double dissolution arrangements, a senator is elected for a fixed term of six years. All of us who have been in this place since the mid-1970s know how often double dissolutions have been used to interrupt those full terms and few, if any, in this place have served a full six-year term. But it is also a remaining element of our constitutional arrangements that, when a Prime Minister is considering calling an early election, one of the limiting factors on him is his incapacity to bring forward elections for the Senate unless he has a double dissolution power or unless he is within the prescribed constitutional period for a Senate election. If this Bill becomes law and if the referendum is passed it will remove that fetter on prime ministerial discretion. The only essential element of the Senate which is left if this referendum succeeds is the equal representation of the States. To some extent, that can be said to be already at risk because, with the approval of the High Court of Australia of the creation of Territory senators, it remains open to a government with control of the Senate to, in turn, gerrymander the Senate by the creation of unlimited numbers of Senate places from Territories. That is not something which I think could be got through the Senate currently. I trust that the present composition of the Senate would block any attempt to rort the Senate, to gerrymander the Senate in this way. The point I make is that the fundamental constitutional protection of the institution of the Senate is thoroughly challenged and indeed virtually destroyed by this proposal. The Government's claim that it will lead to fewer elections is based on hope and, in our view, is likely to be proven wrong because there is less fetter on the ability of the Prime Minister of the day to call elections. He can call an election for both Houses at any time. I think the attitude of the public to this will, in the end, be determined by the attitude of the public to the Senate and its role. The fundamental point which has to be considered by the Australian people is whether they want to have one chamber of this Parliament which still functions as a parliamentary chamber. I think it would be fair to say that there are few, if any, chambers of Australian parliaments-we have, of course, eight parliaments in this country-where the Executive does not ride roughshod over the parliamentary institution. Certainly in our sister chamber, the House of Representatives, the necessary majority of the Government has led to a quite contemptuous view about parliamentary debate. In this chamber, even when the government of the day had a majority-I remind honourable senators that the Fraser Government had a majority in the Senate in the early years-there was no similar attitude to the functioning of this chamber. I remind the Senate of that because the reality is that we have a tradition in this place which is, in a sense, the last vestige of genuine parliamentary life in this country. To the men and women of Australia that means that, when a government is considering major changes which could fundamentally change the nature of our society or our country, the likelihood is that those changes will receive little or no consideration in the lower House. One can take examples from whatever sort of government one likes-Labor or Liberal-it does not matter. I remind honourable senators that in the days of the Whitlam Government a proposal was whipped through the House of Representatives for a national compensation scheme that would have made an enormous difference to very large elements of Australian life-legal, workers compensation and accident compensation generally. It came to this chamber and was submitted to careful parliamentary scrutiny by a Senate committee. The present Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, was a member of that committee, as was I. The views of the Executive Government were subjected to the most careful and rigorous scrutiny and people had a chance to come before the parliamentary committee and to put their views. The three Labor members and the three Liberal members unanimously agreed that that Bill should be withdrawn. When this Government introduced its quite radical proposal for a Bill of Rights it went through the House of Representatives in about a day. There was about one day of debate. Senator Durack —It was guillotined. Senator CHANEY —It was guillotined, according to my friend and colleague Senator Peter Durack. There was one day of debate on a major change to the institutional arrangements in this country. It was only when it came to the Senate that the long debate which occurred in this place resulted in such a public reaction that the Bill was withdrawn. That sort of parliamentary activity does not occur outside this Senate. If the people of Australia value what we have been able to do with respect to the Bill of Rights and the identity card-I believe that they do-they will throw out this first referendum because it is fundamentally about subverting the capacity of this Senate to maintain any sort of independent stance. I do not care who has the majority in this place-whether it is a Labor majority when Labor is in government, a Liberal-National majority when we are in government, or a split Senate as we have now with the Australian Democrats and the Independents having the balance of power-if this referendum is carried, there will be a destruction of the institutional ethos of the Senate which was maintained during the period of the Liberal Government when we had the majority in this place without the assistance of Independents. I believe that Australia will be the poorer for that and that the people of Australia will have many fewer protections than they have today. I remind the Senate, too, that the proposal which is being put forward by the Government is not in the terms recommended by the Constitutional Commission. In this respect the Constitutional Commission recommendation was quite clear. It recommended that there should be a continuation of senators having two terms of the House of Representatives. It did not put forward precisely the proposition that the Opposition would put forward; it put forward a proposition for simultaneous elections, but with half the Senate being elected. The Government has chosen to ignore it, just as the Government has ignored the views of the Business Council of Australia which has published a document that I hope will not be widely misunderstood which supports the need for a longer term for Federal Parliament. When one reads that document carefully, one can see that the Constitutional Commission is making it clear that the problems in instituting a four-year term can be overcome by extending the terms of senators from six to eight years, or by providing that senators serve for two terms of the House of Representatives. Let me make the point that this proposal comes from nowhere but the Government and it is not a proposal that will be supported by anyone who believes Parliament should have any continuing role in the government of this country. I turn to what Ewart Smith said. His comment in the opinion to which I have referred was to call this `the most sinister of all the proposals' that are being put forward by the Government. While saying that `one can agree in principle that a four-year term has been readily accepted as a proper term for Australia', Ewart Smith continued to make the point that this will be a great attack, `a diminution of the influence of the Senate'. That is exactly what the proposed amendments do and are intended to do. I turn now to the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the title of which is: An Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. Once again we have a totally dishonest question being put to the Australian people. The real import of the Bill is that the Government is seeking to apply as an overriding and absolute rule on the States the principle of one vote one value. I have absolutely no doubt that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, like many other Liberals and Nationals, would accept that the principle of one vote one value is of great importance in determining a fair electoral system. But what the Government is doing here is not saying, `Let us make this an important principle of electoral redistribution'; it is saying that this will be the overriding and immutable principle for State upper and lower Houses. Yet the Government is not prepared in this proposal, and nor should it be, to apply the same principle immutably to the Commonwealth. The proposition says to the States, `We will not apply one vote one value to the House of Representatives or to the Senate but we will apply one vote one value on an immutable basis to the parliaments of the States'. I have had a look at the arrangements for the Commonwealth and they will not be touched by this referendum proposal. It will not change the basis of the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives or the allocation of senators to each State. Shortly, I should like to have incorporated in Hansard a table which has been prepared by the Parliamentary Library and which shows the variations from the quotas, from the principle of one vote one value, in the current Federal Houses. These variations will not be touched by the Government in its proposal. For example, one finds in the House of Representatives that Tasmania is 14 per cent below quota because the Constitution guarantees the Tasmanians five seats in the House of Representatives. No-one in this chamber would challenge the rightness of that but the effect of that principle in the House of Representatives means that all the seats in Tasmania are beyond the tolerance permitted any lower House seat in the States. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has two Labor members. I do not remember anyone objecting yet to there being two Labor members from the ACT; they are 16 per cent above quota. In other words, the Government is leaving in place arrangements under the Constitution that do not allow the application of one vote one value to the House of Representatives. What is the position with the Senate? With its guaranteed equal representation from the States, the Senate presents a far starker picture. The table shows that in New South Wales senators are 117 per cent over quota. There is not a 10 per cent tolerance; it is 117 per cent away from the average for Australia. Victoria is 65 per cent out; Queensland is within the 10 per cent tolerance, its quota being 4.4 per cent; South Australia is 42 per cent below; Western Australia is 44 per cent below; the Northern Territory is 70 per cent below; the Australian Capital Territory is 40 per cent below; and Tasmania is 81 per cent below. In other words, the Senate is based on tolerances that range between plus 117 per cent and minus 81 per cent. On the Government's definition, that apparently is not fair. Yet I would say that virtually everyone in Australia would defend the Senate's present composition and the Government would not dare attack it because it knows any such attack would be rejected by the Australian people. That is what the Government is leaving in place for the Federal Parliament. I make the point absolutely clear that I am not objecting to that; the arrangements are proper and democratic and do not provide advantage for any party. They provide fair representation for the States in the upper House and fair representation for the State of Tasmania. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- House of Representatives No. of Seats Electors enrolled (July 87) Average enrolment Variation of State av. from Aust. av. Variation of Tas. av. from mainland average Senate No. of Senators Electors per Senator Variation of State av. from Aust av. Variation of Tas. av. from mainland average N.S.W.... 51 3555060 69707.1 -0.35% -247 - 12 296255 +117.5% +160028.5 - Vic.... 39 2698034 69180.4 -1.1% -773.7 - 12 224836.2 +65% +88609.7 - Qld... 24 1707161 71131.7 +1.7% +1177.6 - 12 142263.4 +4.4% +6036.9 - S.A.... 13 942880 72529.2 +3.7% +2575.1 - 12 78573.3 -4.3% +57653.2 - W.A.... 13 906677 69744.4 -0.3% +209.7 - 12 75556.4 -44.5% -60670.1 - N.T.... 1 79921 79921 +14.2% +9966.9 - 2 39960.5 -70.7% -96266 - A.C.T.... 2 162717 81358.5 +16.3% +11404.4 - 2 81358.5 -40.3% -54868 - Tas.... 5 300763 60152.6 -14.0% -9801.5 -14.43% -10144.3 12 25063.6 -81.6% -111162.9 -84% -132005.9 Aust.... 148 10353213 69954.1 - - 76 136226.5 - - Mainland Aust.... 143 10052450 70296.9 +0.5% +342.8 - 64 157069.5 +15.3% +20843 - Senator CHANEY —I thank the Senate. Let us turn to what is being struck down. The most obvious places being attacked are the upper Houses in Tasmania and Western Australia. The Western Australian Legislative Council was recently reconstituted on a regional basis and some variations are outside the 10 per cent tolerance. The range is between plus 48 per cent and minus 55 per cent; in other words, approximately half the range that applies to the Senate. The referendum alleges that one cannot have half of the variation in the State House of Western Australia that one has in the Senate. Yet the Senate variation will not be touched. I accuse the Government of rank hypocrisy and of turning an important principle into an immutable rule that will take from the States their entitlement to have an electoral system that meets State circumstances. I remind the Government that when it proposed to legislate for the State of Western Australia, the then Labor Premier, Mr Burke, told the Government to go away and to leave the matter to the State because it was a State matter. The Tasmanian Legislative Council has variations that range between minus 60 per cent and plus 31 per cent of the average quota-again, roughly half the variations that apply to the Senate. The simple point I wish to make is that the Opposition embraces the view that one vote one value is an important principle to take into account when drawing electoral boundaries but one vote one value will not prevent gerrymanders and will not prevent distributions of seats which are wrong and which are aimed to benefit the particular political interests of a particular party. The figures show that at the Commonwealth level a fair and democratic electoral system permits considerable variations. Quite apart from any issue of federalism and quite apart from the vital issue of leaving to the States the jurisdiction of their own affairs, which the Opposition regards as a centrally important element of the Constitution, the simple proposition I put to the Senate is that the Commonwealth is applying a rule to the States that it will not, would not and could not apply to the Federal Parliament. This referendum must be thrown out because to do otherwise would be to fly in the face of the realities of Australia. As a Western Australian senator and one who has always argued in my State Party for the need to pay regard to the principle of one vote one value, I say that, in a State the size of Western Australia with its population distribution and its geographic features, to deny it the right of any regional representation in the upper House other than on the basis of one vote one value is not fair and democratic. Again, if I may pray in aid the views of Ewart Smith, he describes this as something which, on a superficial reading, appears to have no barbs. But he continues convincingly to make the point that it was not contemplated by the Constitution that there should be this capacity to take matters out of the hands of the States. The other very serious criticism that needs to be made about the proposals which have been put forward is that it is not at all clear what would happen if the State boundaries were struck down by this proposed constitutional change. The possibility of electoral chaos is real and speaks against our taking the view that this is an appropriate constitutional amendment. I will turn now to the proposal to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. This proposal seems to have been born out of the depths of the greatest cynicism. It claims to recognise local government. The proposal is that there should be inserted into the Constitution these words: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. It seems that there are only two possibilities with that amendment. One is that it is meaningless because it does no more than acknowledge the status quo. It does none of the things local government was seeking in recognition. On the face of it, it provides no constitutional guarantee that the States cannot dismiss local government and then refuse to reappoint it. The second reading speech made by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) makes it quite clear that the Government thinks that the existing arrangements for dismissal of local government will still apply. However, the sort of constitutional guarantees being sought by local government certainly, on the face of it, do not appear to be granted by this provision. Rather, it is simply a pious acknowledgment of what is already there in a circumstance in which four of the six States have already given recognition to local government in their own State constitutions. It appears to the Opposition that it is an appropriate action for a State government to follow to provide for an appropriate recognition of local government within a State constitution. The Opposition certainly does not see the value of words that are meaningless or, if they are to have some meaning, have a meaning that cannot yet be divined. The quite contrary points which can be put as a caution against the amendment to recognise local government is that, as was said by the High Court in considering whether the guarantee of trial by jury had any meaning at all, Justices Dixon and Evatt said: We admit the difficulties which the form of section 80 creates, but to treat such a constitutional provision as producing no substantial effect seems rather to defeat than to ascertain its intention. In light of the extraordinary variations of constitutional interpretation by the High Court, I fear that the judges may quite properly see themselves as being under some duty to find a meaning to these words. If the meaning is not merely to recognise the existence of local government as something which is there but over which the Commonwealth, the courts and everyone else have no control outside the legislative arrangements that are put in place by the States, then there must be some risk that the judges could be prepared to try to find some other meaning for those words. I challenge the Government to give any real guarantee that the proposals with respect to local government are any more than simply a bit of window dressing to make people in local government feel that they are getting some recognition when, in fact, the proposal is meaningless. Alternatively, what guarantee can the Government give that the High Court will not at some later time place some new meaning on the words that are, on the face of it, so apparently meaningless? Quite naturally, local government has shown some interest in this matter and there is a long history on the question of recognition of local government. Another point that is worth making in this debate is that if this provision is meaningless, as it appears on the face of it, and adds nothing to the Constitution, why is the Government undertaking it? I simply wish to remind local government that, over the past three years, the Hawke Government has demonstrated its real attitude to local government by the funding arrangements it has put in place. I remind local government of the relatively benign approach of the Liberal and National parties to local government when it comes to providing benefits for that level of government. Local government should remember that the Hawke Government cutbacks in road funding over the past three years amount to a reduction of 25 per cent or $300m. The Hawke Government has cut back local government's share of personal income tax collections. Under Mr Fraser's Government, that share of income tax collections was increased 2 per cent. If one looks at the figures under the Hawke Government, again taken out by the Library, one sees that in 1985-86, the Government reduced the share of local government to 1.9 per cent; in 1986-87, it was reduced to 1.85 per cent; in 1987-88, it was reduced to 1.75 per cent; and the estimate for this year is 1.66 per cent. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard a comparison of Commonwealth funding to local government over the years 1976 to 1988. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COMPARISON OF COMMONWEALTH FUNDING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1976-1988 Year Government Funding level as % of Previous year's Personal Income Tax Collections % 1976-77 ... Fraser 1.52 1977-78 ... Fraser 1.52 1978-79 ... Fraser 1.52 1979-80 ... Fraser 1.75 1980-81 ... Fraser 2.00 1981-82 ... Fraser 2.00 1982-83 ... Fraser 2.00 1983-84 ... Hawke 2.00 1984-85 ... Hawke 2.00 1985-86 ... Hawke 1.90 1986-87 ... Hawke 1.85 1987-88 ... Hawke 1.75 1988-89 (a) ... Hawke 1.66 SOURCE: Commonwealth Parliamentary Library. Figures for 1977-78 to 1984-85 reflect formulae adopted in Local Government tax sharing legislation. Figures for 1985-86 to 1987-88, calculated by Parliamentary Library, are based upon what the percentage would have been had the formula been applied. (a) Figure for 1988-89 has been estimated on the basis of an assumption of the inflation rate and assumes a cut of around 4% in real terms, in line with State cuts. These figures do not include grants to the Northern Territory. Senator CHANEY —The Hawke Government also abolished the only national forum available to local government-the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations, which was abolished in 1986. Where the Commonwealth does have direct authority in the local government area, in the Territory of Christmas Island, the Hawke Government intervened and sacked the local government authority. There is no guarantee of local government in the ACT, which is an area of direct Commonwealth responsibility. I turn now to the fourth misleading proposal the Government is putting forward, the referendum proposal regarding rights and freedoms, which are contained in the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. Senators enter this debate having recently emerged from the debate on the Bill of Rights. Clear public disinclination was demonstrated during that debate to going down the track of handing to Australian judges the sort of power that has been given to judges in the United States to make broad political and social judgments on the basis of very broad statements of principle. I believe one basis for opposition to this proposal is that we do not want to see its being used as the thin end of the wedge towards a Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution. I believe it is important to remain suspicious when handing decisions over to unelected judges. One of the interesting elements of preparing for this debate has been to go over some of the decisions of the courts where they have tried to deal with those parts of the Constitution which touch on questions of civil rights, whether it is a matter of freedom of religion or the right to compensation when one's property is taken by Government. I have already quoted what was said by Justices Dixon and Evatt, who were concerned about the operation of section 80, which is the so-called guarantee of trial by jury. They said: We admit the difficulties, which the form of sec. 80 creates, but to treat such a constitutional provision as producing no substantial effect seems rather to defeat than to ascertain its intention. The reality is that the judges of the High Court have been severely split in the interpretation of that. Judges always have widely differing opinions on judgments of this sort. Nothing can be found in the precedents in terms of High Court consideration of existing so-called guarantees that would lead one to believe that its consideration of these matters is superior to that of democratic politicians. The experience of the United States and its Bill of Rights shows where it leads. The Brown case in the 1950s started the move towards school integration. The Supreme Court found that a doctrine of the separate provision of equal facilities was not equal treatment under the law, and that represented a substantial reversal of previous judicial appointments. The reality is that what the judges think at any time about what these broad guarantees mean will change according to changes in the judges and changes in community values. One cannot look at the United States experience with respect to the bussing of black students to try to achieve that equality of education. If one looks at the United States arrangements with respect to electoral redistribution under the Bill of Rights, one cannot escape the inevitable conclusion that it has forced the United States Supreme Court to engage in what are effectively legislative and quasi executive roles. In other words, the courts have ceased to be courts as we understand them and have become a body forced to legislate to cover the complexities of the judgments required under the Bill of Rights. We see that in the field of abortion; we see it in the field of equal treatment before the law; we see it with the Supreme Court trying to balance up the judgments as to whether a positive discrimination in favour of a student from a minority group amounts to a discrimination against the white student who is denied admission to a medical school in California. These are matters of value judgments which, in the end, under our system, are better dealt with in the Parliament than in the courts. I wish simply to affirm the concern of the Opposition at any Bill of Rights style of approach to the maintenance of human rights in this country, and to refer briefly to comments, one by the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, who, writing in the Australian Law Journal in 1984 on the past approaches of the High Court of Australia to the interpretation of section 92 of the Constitution, referred to the oscillation of the High Court. He said that the fact that the earlier decision `could be reversed serves to indicate how tortuous the path of judicial interpretation has been'. There are plenty of other authorities that I could go to, but time does not permit me to do so, to show this total lack of consistency of judicial interpretation which we have had with respect to the Australian Constitution, and the danger therefore of seeing that as the fundamental way of defending human rights. But to look at the question of trial by jury, for example, the simple condemnation that can be made of what the Government is putting forward is that the Government has written into this proposal the way around it. The reality is that this proposal with respect to trial by jury provides specifically that it does not affect the operation of a law which permits waiver by the accused of trial by jury, which regulates the size of composition of the jury or provides for majority verdicts. In other words, within the Government's own proposal it has left room for endless variation on what form of jury we shall have and what a jury decision really means. What is quite clear from the authorities in this area is that the extent to which that will provide any guarantee is totally unpredictable. For example, will the court hold that a jury of three is a jury? Will it hold that a majority decision of seven to five is a jury decision? They are the sorts of questions which are completely left at large under this proposal. With respect to the issue of freedom of religion, I would ask the Senate and the people of Australia to look at the difference between what is now proposed by the Government and what is already in place in the Constitution. The present Constitution provides in section 116: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion . . . It goes on in terms which are in common with the proposal that the Government now puts before us. What the Government is now saying is that the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not establish any religion, impose any religious observance or so on. The taking out of the words `shall not make any law' potentially widens the application of this provision in a way which I think many people in Australia would find objectionable. For example, who is to say that the High Court would not hold, now that the reference to legislation has been removed, that the saying of the Lord's Prayer in this chamber should not be struck down under this new provision? Who would not say that prayer in a public school should not be struck down? The Minister at the table, the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray), laughs. Is he prepared to ignore the extraordinary interpretations of the American Supreme Court? Senator Robert Ray —You are desperate. I was not going to interject. Senator CHANEY —The Minister says that is desperate. I simply draw the Minister's attention to the very wide interpretation which has been put on the United States guarantee under the Bill of Rights. I suggest to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that there is no guarantee that the High Court will not interpret this sort of provision in the way I have indicated. As far as the proposal that we should extend the just terms provisions to the States is concerned, I simply wish to say this: The only pressure that I have heard of politically for the extension of this constitutional guarantee came from the State of New South Wales. That came because the Wran Government took the coal rights of private landowners without compensation. That gave rise to a justifiable political outrage in that State and to the demand by people that there should be an extension of this constitutional guarantee. I simply wish to say with respect to that, that the people of New South Wales remedied that deficiency in a proper democratic way just a month or two ago when they threw out the Labor Government. The present Greiner Government has indicated that it will now remedy the theft of those coal rights from the citizens of New South Wales. That is the proper political remedy which is available to people in the States if there is an abuse of the usual principle that there should be compensation when property is taken. The only other point I wish to make about that is to raise on behalf of the Northern Territory Government its concern at what is proposed by the Government in this area, because it says that the form of the Bill amounts to a discrimination against the Northern Territory because the constitutional guarantee applies only to property being taken from individuals in the Northern Territory and not from the Government of the Northern Territory. So there is, at the governmental level, deep concern on the part of the Northern Territory Government that what is proposed by the Government in this amendment is not fair to the Northern Territory and should not therefore be supported. In the few minutes which remain I wish to refer to the proposals which are being put forward by the Australian Democrats in their Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. The view of the Opposition is that that proposal is one which is not yet ripe for public consideration in the form of a referendum. The Opposition announced at the time of the last election that it believed that this proposal warranted serious consideration, and we have in a number of ways been promoting discussion in the Australian community on the proposal that the electors of Australia should have, as they have in Switzerland and in some States of the United States, the right to initiate law making and to carry out law making without the intervention of this Parliament. The Opposition released a Green Paper on voter initiated laws on 15 April 1988. It is a bulky document, so I do not seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard, but I do seek leave to table that document, as an indication of the wide range of issues which the Opposition believes need to be considered before the people of Australia come to a final conclusion on whether they want to make this quite sharp change from the constitutional practices which have previously applied. The paper makes it quite clear that there are many detailed matters which need consideration-whether constitutional amendments should be concluded; whether proposals should cover only one subject, for example; what number of signatures should be required, should it be 5 per cent or more or less; should the signatures be obtained from more than one State; should there be a time limit on the obtaining of the signatures; should there be the involvement of the Parliament in the terms of a committee examination of any proposal so that it can be put in legislative form; should the Parliament have the right to put in an alternative proposal for consideration in the referendum; what should be the funding and campaigning expenditure disclosure requirements; what should be the majorities; should they involve States as well as the nation; should there be a limitation on the resubmission of proposals; should there be any power for the Parliament to repeal, and if so on what basis; what are the roles of the courts with respect to this process; and so on. All of these matters in our view need to be substantially canvassed, because we believe that, just as the Constitutional Commission found that there was in the Australian community an imperfect understanding of the constitutional proposals for an Aboriginal treaty, for example, and that that matter should be put aside to enable further debate and discussion, I would put the view on behalf of the Opposition that the voter initiated proposal, whilst of great interest and potentially of value to us, is one which needs far greater public debate before it is embraced by this Parliament. I conclude by saying that the Opposition will campaign very fiercely against the four proposals which are being put forward by the Government. We see them as proposals which will further centralise power, increase the power of the Prime Minister and, most importantly, destroy the operation of the Senate. We oppose the Bills, and we will fight against them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Senator Chaney sought leave to table a document. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.09) —We have just listened to Senator Chaney expounding his views on the referendums for an hour. He could have spent just one minute. He could have said that, on a variety of spurious grounds, the Opposition was going to oppose these referendum proposals on the ground of expediency. It would have saved the taxpayers of this country a whole wasted hour in terms of his contribution. What Senator Chaney has done today has been, not to go to the heart of the referendum proposals in the main, but cobble a series of irrelevant and distracting arguments together to cover up for the Opposition's failure to confront this issue. The Opposition is being inconsistent. It is trying to dress up its opposition to these referendums in a whole range of principles that barely exist. Today I am going to address only two of the referendum proposals. I will leave it to my colleagues to deal with local government and putting into the Constitution States rights. The first Bill that concerns us as parliamentarians is the suggestion of having four-year terms. The arguments for having four-year terms have been around for many years. Indeed, I think they were around at the turn of the century. Senator Boswell —You have never served a full term since you have been in government. Senator ROBERT RAY —Since Federation we have had 38 Federal elections; that is an election on average every 2.3 years. As Senator Boswell would say no doubt by interjection, no person in this chamber has served a six-year term. In fact, Senator McClelland, when he left us, was the last person to have served six years. From 1946 to 1987-in the last 43 years-we have had 22 Federal elections, which means that we are averaging government terms of less than two years. In addition, we have State elections at any given time. One of the public's arguments is that we are having too many elections. It seems to the public that every year we have an election of some sort. Let me take New South Wales as an example. Since 1960, 28 years ago, the voters in New South Wales-our largest State-have had the absence of an election, State or Federal, in only four years. In only 1979, 1982, 1985 and 1986 have they not had a Federal or State election. The situation is similar in other States. It has been overcome somewhat by the movement of other States to four-year terms. Gradually we have seen a variety of States move to four-year terms-New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The two exceptions to that at the moment-although I have no doubt that they may even be giving it sympathetic consideration-are Queensland and Western Australia. We should note also that New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia not only have four-year terms but also have simultaneous terms for both Houses. Generally with the support of the coalition parties in this country they have moved to simultaneous terms. In Victoria there is a provision that one cannot take the Legislative Council out in the first three years. That is a variation, if you like, on that theme. But once the Legislative Council in Victoria has served three years the terms become simultaneous and simultaneous elections can be held. That has been supported by conservatives. I wonder why it is not reciprocated at a Federal level. The Northern Territory, the other remaining legislature, also has a four-year term. In none of those legislatures can it be argued that democracy has been endangered by a four-year term. Of all the major Western democracies four- and five-year terms are the norm. We, along with New Zealand, have brothers or sisters in arms, if you like, only in the case of Mexico and Sweden, which have three-year terms. So, not only do we see four-year terms in a majority of States, but also in other comparative democracies around the world their parliamentary terms are generally four or five years. Only in two cases are they three-year terms. The Government has been accused of not being bipartisan enough on these subjects. Written into the Australian Labor Party platform is a desire, not only for four-year terms, but also for four-year fixed terms. Very early we picked up the vibe from the Liberal Party of Australia, and from other debates, that it would not support four-year fixed terms. So we have already taken a step on the way towards bipartisanship by eliminating the fixed element, because it re-started the whole debate about Supply and everything else which the Opposition did not want considered a referendum proposal. So we went some of the way by removing the fixed element, hoping to get some sort of support. It might be very satisfying to Opposition parties and to the media for us to be continually in an election mode. It might be exciting for the Press. It might be encouraging for the Opposition. But it is not necessarily good for the country. That argument has been expounded by a whole range of people. The various public opinion surveys generally show that people are in favour of four-year terms. Quite often the types of questions they are asked would explain the variations in the polls, but in general there has been support for four-year terms. Many groups in business and commerce have been strong in their support of four-year terms. Even the Business Council of Australia, albeit having a different view on the Senate term, has been strongly in favour of four-year terms. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has been strong in its support for four-year terms. The basic reason for that is that those groups recognise that the need in this country for stable planning and implementation of government policies is absolutely critical. Oppositions tend not to regard that as a national priority. Four-year terms give a government a much better chance to introduce an economic regime and to see whether it will work. Having elections every three years, whilst it does not totally contradict that, is an impediment of it. I would have thought that it was recognised by most honourable senators that that is one of the strongest arguments in favour of a four-year term. All I can say is that the Opposition, by its opposition to this proposal, is showing contempt for economic management in this country. I should go to the reasons, professed not only by Senator Chaney when he actually got onto the referendums-which was rare-but also by other Liberals in another place and in their public statements for their objection to four-year terms as presented in this referendum. It really has two legs to it, although there are some other peripheral arguments, which I will deal with later. The Opposition opposes simultaneous terms and basically wants double, or fixed, eight-year terms for the Senate. In all my reading on this subject, though, I cannot establish whether the Opposition is arguing for double the terms of the House of Representatives or for a fixed eight-year term. The Opposition has been very clever in not spelling that out. I hope that in these debates some Opposition members get up and tell us whether they want eight-year fixed terms or double House of Representatives terms when it comes to four-year terms. To demonstrate the absolute hypocrisy of the Opposition on this subject, let us go to the record of what Opposition members have had to say on the question of simultaneous elections. Speaking in the House of Representatives in 1977, the then Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair-he is now the Leader of the National Party; is he still the Leader?-said: But more significantly I believe that there will be fewer elections and therefore whichever party may be in government will have a proper opportunity to govern and carry out its proper duties. That is what Mr Sinclair said on simultaneous terms. Introducing the Bill into this chamber Senator Durack, as the responsible Minister, said: Apart from the benefits of public convenience and savings of expenditure the proposal will benefit the Parliament by ensuring that the people's will is reflected simultaneously in both Houses, it will provide a more satisfactory electoral basis upon which the government of the country can proceed. So one of the relevant Ministers, when the Opposition was in government, endorsed simultaneous elections. We then had one of the junior woodchucks of the then Ministry-Senator Chaney-get up. He said something very prophetic. He was criticised for inconsistency. In 1974 the Liberal Party opposed simultaneous terms, but in 1977 it put them to the people. Senator Chaney said: If we all are to be men of absolute consistency it seems to me that we will never make progress with constitutional change and reform. What prophetic words. No one these days can accuse Senator Chaney of consistency. He opposed simultaneous elections in 1974. He supported them in 1977. He is opposing them in 1988. If he ever gets into government, he will again support them. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. Senator Chaney then went on to expound the virtues of simultaneous elections. He said: There is no real dispute in this chamber about the fact that we should have fewer elections in Australia. That is the very point we make today. He then said: It is common knowledge that Senate elections- meaning separate Senate elections- such as have been held since the early 1960s in Australia are held in a by-election atmosphere, and in that situation they do not genuinely reflect the wish of the people as to who should govern. Listening to Senator Chaney's comments earlier today, I thought how history tends to haunt us. Finally, given the Chaney line today, this is the classic Chaney quotation: Why is it that suddenly the concept of bringing the elections together will destroy this chamber? I do not believe that it will. We have had the great recantation today. The statements of 1977, when Senator Chaney was in government looking after his own self-interests, no longer apply because he has different priorities today. Any sleazy method adopted by the coalition to get it back into government is worth more than constitutional principle and consistency. It is there on the record; the honourable senator is condemned by it. What is wrong with simultaneous terms? Why do we have simultaneous terms in this legislation? Most times it is not simply a three-year period, as my friend Senator Boswell has pointed out, that will cause a government to go to an early election; it is the lack of simultaneous terms. The reason for it is that when we have double dissolutions the terms are backdated. I do not blame or condemn Malcolm Fraser for going to an early election late in 1977. He could not afford to have a half Senate election by itself and neither could Bob Hawke go to a separate Senate election in 1984. Why? As Senator Chaney has already indicated, it is a by-election atmosphere. In terms of the fortunes of any major political party, let us look as the last occasion we had a half Senate election. In 1970 we went to a half Senate election, and what a joy it was. I am sure that Senator Lewis, who is in the chamber, was involved in it. We all turned up to hear our party leaders deliver their speeches and we could have let off a shotgun in the hall and not hit anyone. The results then flowed in, the Democratic Labor Party polling 19 per cent of the vote, with Senator Little getting up in Victoria, Senator Kane in New South Wales and Senator Condon Byrne in Queensland. We then had the great spectacle of Senator Negus getting up in Western Australia and Senator Townley, a renegade Liberal, getting up in Tasmania. It is an absolute bonanza for almost the ratbag candidates of the world. They have their rights and I am not about to step on them. But no government and no real opposition either-because oppositions get hurt just as badly as other parties-want a separate Senate election again. I might also say that in South Australia the better education group got 10 per cent of the vote and, by a fluke, missed out on the final quota. So we just do not have the political will in the Australian Labor Party and the coalition parties to have separate Senate elections any more. We just do not have them. By not having them and by not having a provision for simultaneous elections, time and again we will lay down the groundwork for forced early elections. Let us just look at the second leg and at the new argument that has emerged from the Opposition parties. They say, `We might be a bit nervous about simultaneous elections, but really this is an attack on the Senate chamber because you must have double terms or fixed eight-year terms'. Let me go back again to the record. I will not go back to 1977; I will go back to 1983 and I quote the attitudes of some of the luminaries of the Liberal Party of Australia, not only in the House of Representatives but also in this chamber, on eight-year terms. Let me go to one of the doyens of the Liberal Party, Mr Spender, who, in October 1983, said: However, I wonder whether eight years might be a little excessive. It causes me some concern that a person could sit in the Senate for eight years growing old without having to face the electorate. That is what Mr Spender had to say. Let us go to what Mr Newman, who was then in the House of Representatives, had to say: I could not tolerate a senator having an eight-year term. That would make him almost completely independent of the electorate. It would give him such a continuity of service that we might as well put him on the Public Service payroll and be done with it. That continually would allow him not to be answerable to the electorate. That is one of the greats of the Tasmanian Liberal Party speaking. Let us move on, though, to a more respected figure in the coalition. Senator Boswell should prick up his ears. Mr Doug Anthony from the National Party-- Senator Boswell —A good man. Senator ROBERT RAY —A good man, I hear. Then will the honourable senator endorse this or will he betray him here today? Mr Anthony said: I find it very hard to digest the proposal that we extend the term of the Senate from six to eight years. Eight years is a very long time indeed, and I think that in the course of the referendum campaign many questions will be asked by the Australian people as to whether an alteration to elect senators into a position free from accountability to the people for eight years is really warranted. That is what Mr Anthony had to say about it. Let us go back to Tasmania and hear what Mr Hodgman had to say about it at the time. He said: I have to say with the greatest respect to my colleagues in the Senate that I think an eight-year term is too long. The reaction I have noticed from the electors in discussions I have had about these proposals is very much to that effect. He is backed up by Mr Burr who is not, I understand, a friend of Mr Hodgman-he is from the other wing of the Liberal Party in Tasmania. Mr Burr had this to say: It must be recognised that there are problems in extending the terms of senators to eight years and denying the public the opportunity to give a judgment on the performance of those senators for eight years. So there we have some of the leading lights of the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives saying that eight years is too long. But why leave it there? Why not start a journey into the Senate? Senator Lewis's turn is coming. In the Senate we had the then golden boy of the Liberal Party, Senator Hill, saying: I must confess that I am not entirely happy with the prospect of eight years. I interpolate here that I bet he would have voted for it. He continued: That seems to me too long a term. I have often said that, in the secrecy of the ballot box, we are always sure of 76 votes when we go for eight-year terms as senators. What did former Senator Withers have to say about an eight-year term for the Senate? He said: Not much is said of course, about its great benefit to us. We are all going to do a little better. Good lord, if we get four-year terms in the other place and eight-year terms here it will be almost as good as being either a tenured academic or a tenured public servant-not quite. That is what Senator Withers had to say about eight-year terms. We then come to Senator Lewis, a very respected figure in the Liberal Party, and I quote him: To give senators a term of eight years causes me great concern. I would be totally opposed to it . . . He then goes on and qualifies that by saying that for the price of getting four-year terms-I point this out to protect him-he would buy eight years. But, basically, he then expressed his opposition to it. I do not think any quotations can be finished unless we tour back to Tasmania, the home of constitutional reform, where Senator Archer said: But there is no way that I can go along with the suggestion that an eight-year term for senators is reasonable. I think that any member of this chamber who tries to sell himself in the community and get support for an eight-year term will have a job in front of him. There we have on the record Liberal Party support for simultaneous terms. Malcolm Fraser put it to the people in 1977. We must have been mugs, in opposition, to say, `out of bipartisanship we will support you' because it is never reciprocated by those opposite. When it comes to eight-year terms-I assume that is what members of the Opposition are arguing for-there is vacuum opposite. Honourable senators opposite will not say exactly what they think the Senate should do. Would they double the term of the House of Representatives? Would they have an eight-year term in the Senate? I have read about nine quotes from leaders of the Liberal Party and the National Party who said only five years ago, and this is on the record, that they oppose the concept of eight-year terms. I think the argument of the Opposition in that regard is just a red herring. Let me move to the second proposal that I want to discuss today; that is, the question of the so-called fair election-one vote one value. In the report of the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters, which I commend to all honourable senators to read, a lot of emphasis has been put on the definitions of the words `malapportionment' and `gerrymander' but there is a difference of opinion between honourable senators on this side of the chamber and honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. Honourable senators on the other side of the chamber say, `You cannot ever control gerrymandering; therefore, you should never try to control malapportionment'. That seems to be the guts of some of their arguments. I point out, though, that malapportionment is also a tool of gerrymandering. We cannot make an absolute distinction between the two because when we use malapportionment with a rural bias it is really one arm, one weapon of the gerrymander in this country. Its effect will depend very much on the socioeconomic distribution in Australia. It may well be that a rural bias in Western Australia does not disadvantage the Labor Party. I think that basically that is true. In Queensland, especially with the use of a zonal system to isolate provincial seats, it is very much to the Labor Party's disadvantage and very much to the Liberal Party's disadvantage. Senator Sheil —Why did they bring it in? Senator ROBERT RAY —I have been asked a question by Senator Sheil: Why did the Labor Party bring it in in 1949? I have answered that before. The Labor Party was wrong to do that in 1949. I might ask why Senator Sheil's conservative predecessors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries condoned slavery. That has about as much relevance to the argument. Our record on fair elections, as I will demonstrate in a moment, has been fairly good in the last 20 years. I do not defend every Labor decision of the past. I do not defend Labor's decision to support the white Australia policy which existed until 1970. Senator Sheil should not introduce absolutely irrelevant issues into the debate. I will make one final comment about gerrymandering. People ask: How does one confront the question of gerrymandering? There are two things that one can do. Firstly, by removing malapportionment one tends to lessen the scope of any potential gerrymanderer. That is incontrovertible. Secondly, the only other way is to appoint fair and independent commissioners. The Labor Party has done that in some of the States. People often chip at us, but basically that is the case. I have not heard the Opposition criticise some of the Supreme Court or Federal Court judges that we have used to that effect. Before it says that we are trying to gerrymander anything, it should look at the commissioners. If the commissioners are fair, gerrymanders will not exist. If they do exist, they exist by fluke and anyone can be on the wrong side of them. Let me point to the 1982-85 redistribution in Victoria. That redistribution, initiated by a State Labor government, appointed an independent judge and independent commissioners. When the boundary lines were drawn, the Labor Party was far worse off. We did not complain; we had to cop it. If one picks independent commissioners, gerrymandering is a thing that disappears from the political scene. It is only when one writes into the legislation, as is the case in Queensland, that specific areas such as the Wudja Wudja area, which has no contiguous boundaries with the electorate of Cook, will be placed in the electorate of Cook, that the accusation of gerrymandering can have some foundation. Let us look at the history of malapportionment in Australia. The Federal Parliament has had by far the fairest set of boundaries in the history of Australia. The Commonwealth Electoral Act initially allowed a 20 per cent tolerance and not much direction to the commissioners. There was no mandatory enforcement of 20 per cent at any one time. In other words, when the commissioners started the redistribution they would use 20 per cent as their limit, but the boundaries could then blow out. It was up to government to initiate the next redistribution. I joined the Labor Party in 1966. That was my first election campaign. I remember what the boundaries were like then. There were 30,000 in one electorate and 140,000 in another. There were 140,000 in the electorate of Lalor, 120,000 in the electorate of Bruce, 30,000 in Darebin and 30,000 in Melbourne. This occurred because not enough attention was given to the electoral laws. In 1975 we had entrenched in Federal electoral law a 10 per cent differential. That took a lot of doing. It took a double dissolution and a joint sitting; nevertheless, that 10 per cent differential was achieved. What did honourable senators opposite do when they regained power? Did they agree with the 10 per cent rule? Did they try to pervert it? Of course they did. Under pressure from the National Party of Australia they introduced the 5,000 square kilometres provision whereby no electorate greater in size than 5,000 square kilometres could have more electors in it than those electorates below that size. They had to fiddle at the edges again. They had to give a little sop to National Party members to keep them on side, but not enough to increase the number of National Party members; otherwise they would demand more Cabinet and ministerial positions. The attitude was, `Feed them a little and they won't get too hungry'. We came to power in 1983. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform looked at the question of electoral redistributions. We introduced in this country the fairest electoral laws in its history-mostly by agreement, I would concede. It meant having independent commissioners and a 10 per cent variation above or below, on average, with growth as the major criterion-not a country bias, physical features, or anything else. That meant that in the 1984 election there was not one seat that was 10 per cent above or below the average. By 1987 there was only a seat that was out of kilter, which was a record for Australia. It was a fast growing area on the Gold Coast. There was only one seat that was outside the State average by 10 per cent either way. That is an achievement that any Labor government can be proud of. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform produced, on page 42 of its report, a variety of figures and tables to make those points. I have already obtained permission from one of the Opposition frontbenchers to incorporate tables in Hansard, rather than delay the Senate on that aspect. I seek the leave of the Senate to do so. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 3.4 ELECTORAL ENROLMENTS FOR STATE AND TERRITORY LOWER HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT Parliament Date Lowest (a)...enrolment Highest enrolment Average enrolment New South Wales ... 1986 28,138 32,589 31,139 Victoria ... 1985 27,859 32,137 30,017 Queensland ... 1986 7,918 21,608 17,590 South Australia ... 1985 17,025 21,998 19,266 Western Australia ... 1986 3,702 29,268 15,495 Northern Territory ... 1987 2,477 3,388 2,987 Tasmania(b) Note: (a) Date of last election, except for New South Wales where date of redistribution. (b) Data is not presented for Tasmania because Tasmania has multi-member electorates each returning 5 members to the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly. Source: Statistics Group, Department of the Parliamentary Library. Table 3.5 ELECTORAL ENROLMENTS FOR STATE UPPER HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT Parliament Date Lowest (a)...enrolment Highest enrolment Average enrolment Victoria ... 1985 115,070 123,537 120,067 Western Australia(b) ... 1986 8,815 97,243 51,955 Tasmania(c) ... 1986 5,352 18,261 14,222 Note: (a) Date of last election. (b) Two members for each electorate. Average based on single member. (c) Zoning is not used in Tasmania, however, redistributions are conducted at the discretion of the Legislative Council. Source: Statistics Group, Department of the Parliamentary Library. Senator ROBERT RAY —Sometimes it is said, `Let's leave it to the States. It will be fixed up over time'. I say in that regard that nearly all the reforms to do away with malapportionment have come from the Labor side of politics. The one exception occurred in South Australia from 1968 to 1970, but even then one vote one value was not achieved. There was a severe lessening of the rural bias-not its elimination, but a lessening of that bias-by Mr Steele Hall. I believe in that his motives were twofold: firstly, he believed in one vote one value; and, secondly, he realised that his only chance of being re-elected at the next election was to remove that running sore from the electoral system. Let us look at the other States. The Bolte Government and Liberal governments generally were in power in Victoria from 1955 to 1982. They set up a zonal system. Did they ever consider one vote one value and fair elections? Not once did they contemplate that. The Cain Government, which was elected in 1982, introduced a 10 per cent variation above or below and independent commissioners. South Australia finally got one vote one value under the Dunstan Government. New South Wales finally got rid of the zonal system under the Wran Government which introduced a 10 per cent variation. The final example of a Labor government is in Western Australia. It introduced reform Bill after reform Bill in an attempt to fix the malapportionment in Western Australia. Every reform Bill but the last foundered in the upper House, where the Liberal and National parties had a majority. They foundered because of an intractable conservative Opposition. In the end we had to compromise in that State and had to cut our electoral reform measures to pieces just to improve the position. That improved position is by no means perfect. One must ask oneself: Why does this situation exist? Why does the Commonwealth have to motivate itself to intervene and impose laws on the States? It does not find any joy in doing so. The real reason lies with the conservative parties of Australia, the Liberals and Nationals, not wanting to contribute at the local level. I heard Senator Chaney say today that he has always been a convinced supporter, virtually, of one vote one value. All I can say is that he does not have much influence. If he supports the principle it may be, as Lenin said, as the hangman's rope supports the hanged. I do not know how he supports it, but let us assume that he does. He cannot have had much influence over his Western Australian colleagues to bring that about. He cannot be a great educator. He cannot be a great numbers man in the Western Australian branch. He has obviously not been able to draw them across. If the Liberal Party in Western Australia had put its numbers behind the reform Bill in the Legislative Council there would have been equality of voting in Western Australia. I know that until recently another group of Liberals has been dominant in Western Australia. Therefore, one can understand Senator Chaney's impotence in dealing with that matter. But I would have thought that things had changed over there recently; maybe the newspaper reports are wrong. It seems to me that it has always been in the hands of the Western Australian Liberal Party to solve these matters. It has never availed itself of the opportunity. Again, I remind the Senate of Senator Chaney's great quote on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program on 17 May, at 7 o'clock, when he said: `Were I a member of the Queensland Liberal Party, I would be arguing very hard with them for a State electoral system that was fairer'. Obviously, Senator Chaney would be regarded these days as a man of principle only if he was born in Queensland. While we are on the subject of Queensland, I will not press the point. Everyone in the country knows how bad the Queensland redistribution systems are. They are based on zones and loadings. There are 8,000 in one electorate and 24,000 in another. Every justification for that system I have heard put up by the National Party of Queensland basically has fallen down. We hear the stupid argument: `Oh, but the people are a long way from the city'. Some of the smallest seats are 100 kilometres away from the centre of Brisbane and some which are more than 2,000 kilometres away-- Senator Boswell —Which one? Senator ROBERT RAY —Like Mount Isa, are much bigger. It is not distance from Brisbane which counts; it is where the National Party votes are concentrated. Why do the Nationals need that system? Senator Sheil appears to have told Senator Boswell. They need it because the National Party can win in Queensland only when the cards are stacked, when the electorates are rigged. The Queensland rorted system is basically not about keeping Labor out of office, that is the great irony of it, it is about keeping the Liberals as the junior coalition members and wiping them out so there would be no Liberal Premier of Queensland. The Australian Labor Party is disadvantaged by the boundaries in Queensland, but not catastrophically so. The whole system was to dud the Liberal Party because the National Party cannot hack it on an even playing field. There is no way National Party members can hack it without stacking the deck in Queensland. Senator Maguire —They cannot fight fair. Senator ROBERT RAY —As Senator Maguire said, no way can they fight fair. But I have to say that at least one can understand the National Party's attitude in Queensland: it has got power and it is going to hold power; it does not care how. I have never been able to understand the Queensland Liberal Party's attitude, which historically was to go along with this system. It had many offers from the Labor Party to form a minority Liberal government to rectify it. It refused. Its attitude in Queensland was the most craven attitude of any political party in this country's history. It is woeful. It is to be condemned. It is only now, in 1988, that a Liberal leader in Queensland, Mr Innes, has finally woken up. He has said that he wants these referendum proposals up because it is the only way people in Queensland will get fair electoral boundaries. It has taken a long time of servitude. It has taken a yellow-bellied attitude by Liberal leader after Liberal leader in Queensland to evaporate, but it has. Now that it has, I congratulate the current Liberal leader for doing so. I think to do any less would be to betray some of the principles that we support. Mr Innes has been ready to do that; apparently no Federal Liberal is willing to join him in that way. We must ask ourselves why the Liberals will not at least support their Queensland colleague. The answer is that they have one overriding principle at the moment and that is unity at all costs. After the events of 1987 they decided that they never wanted them repeated; they must go in future for the lowest common denominator at all times. That and that alone is the way they see electoral success in the future. They cannot have feuds between the National and Liberal parties breaking out again. The Liberal Party paid the price of this attitude before. McMahon paid the price in 1971 over devaluation. The Liberal Party paid the price in 1967 when it let the then Country Party veto the Liberal choice of leadership. Again, what we have seen in the last few weeks in Canberra is the National Party wagging the coalition's tail to such an extent that the Liberal leadership has been rolled more often in recent weeks than the Brisbane Broncos. Time and time again we have seen the Liberal leadership troop into their party room and have to give in under pressure from the National Party, leading people to ask who is actually leading the Liberal Party, does it have a leader or, as someone pointed out to me today, is it just a case of mistaken nonentity in terms of Mr Howard. We wonder who is leading the Liberals. Leaving those arguments aside, one has to track down some of the other red herrings from the Liberal Party. Of course we knew we would cop the old States rights argument which has fronted up again. When the Liberals are bankrupt of ideas they trot out the States rights argument time and time again. It really has no validity in this case. The Constitution, the original compact, dealt with States rights but also put in a provision for changing the Federal Constitution in terms of States rights. There is a big hurdle in the Constitution in that not only a majority of votes but also a majority in a majority of the States is required for a change to the Constitution. That was part of States rights. That is what will be put to the people in September for them to make a judgment on it. We have not heard, but I know we will, the other hoary old chestnut of the Senate being a States House. I should run a tontine or a raffle as to which conservative will first raise this issue of the Senate being the States House. This is not a States House; it virtually never was. There may be some examples in the first decade of this century when States rights could have appeared to have some influence over some votes before party structure developed, but once the party structure developed in this place anyone saying that this was a States House was basically involved in an exercise in hypocrisy. We have also not yet heard about the cost of the referendum. But no doubt that will come up. I point out that after holding three Federal elections we will recoup the cost of this referendum by having fewer elections in that period. We have heard of the great red herring of the cost of the Constitutional Commission. We are doing most things consistent with what the Commission recommended. We are not saying that these are the only referendums that will ever be put up; the other basic issues the Commission raised will also need consideration. I want to deal with one other issue in terms of the Labor Party's attitude. It has taken a long-term attitude on these questions. We are giving up some short term rights, as even Malcolm Mackerras was generous enough to acknowledge on radio the other day. We are basically giving up our right to an early election by putting up this proposition, if it is carried, because our argument for an early election will always be based on not having a separate Senate election. If we were to be minded to go to an early election we would now have to pay the political price: we would not have the excuse. Secondly, in terms of the rotation of senators, we are well placed at the next half Senate election. We have only three senators coming out in one State. My only doubt about these referendums is not that they will weaken the Senate's power but that they will potentially increase it. That is why I reject the thrust of Senator Chaney's comments today. I believe that by having a simultaneous election, virtually a double dissolution, every four years we may be doing too much to entrench the power of the Senate rather than weaken it. Senator Haines —Well, you will never get control of it again. Senator ROBERT RAY —That is the key to it, because if I were so minded and were a Senate chauvinist and wanted to defend the rights of the Senate I would be arguing for a double dissolution every time and not for the potential for one party to get control. For all the glossy words I have heard today from Senator Chaney about the rights of this chamber and its future, et cetera, once a political party gets a majority in this Senate all those principles slide out the back door. I heard Senator Chaney say that there are no principles in the other chamber. I wonder why the members there were sitting until one o'clock every morning last week in order to give debating time to these matters. If they had been as ruthless as Senator Chaney alleges, they would have had a guillotine gag on and been home by 10.30 every night last week. So I do not accept the argument that it will necessarily weaken the power of the Senate. I have some concern that if the referendums are carried they may increase the power of the Senate. The general argument will be brought up, probably even on my side, that these are referendum proposals and we should let the people decide. I reject that. I do not believe every referendum proposal that comes up here should be put to the people. I believe this chamber and the other chamber should have the right to make the decision as to what they regard as right and proper to be put at referendums. So I do not get up here today and say, `Let the people decide'. We are empowered and that is why we have to legislate to put a referendum before it is decided by the people. The final point I want to sum up on is that we have attempted to put eminently fair referendum proposals forward. The Opposition has opposed them because it has to look after its lowest common denominator; that is, the National Party. It cannot afford the risk of divisions, of campaigning against each other. That was burnt into its psyche in 1987. The conclusion that the Australian people will draw from that is that if Opposition members are not willing to show some intestinal fortitude they are not entitled to come back into government. That is the price those opposite are going to pay for their papered-up unity. That is a terrible price, when we think about it. If they wonder why they have got such a bad reception in the Press on their attitude to the referendums, it is because most people have seen through their strategy. People know that the Liberal Party and the National Party are going to go around dredging up all the distracting issues to try to distract the electors on these matters. I believe that this set of referendums will, if carried-and I do not proclaim that there is any certainty about it at the polls-make for a better and more democratic society. They deserve to be supported-and I hope they are. If they are not supported, the Labor Party will not stop pursuing such principles as four-year terms and one vote one value. We will continue to expound them and one day, I assure honourable senators, we will win. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.51) —I wish first in this debate, which is dealing with five Constitution Alteration Bills, four proposed by the Government and one by the Australian Democrats, to refer to my Party's attitude to votes on referenda Bills before the Senate. Unlike the attitude of Senator Robert Ray, our attitude is that a proposal coming before this chamber, which is put by a senator whether from the Government or as a representative of another political party, who has taken the time and trouble to work out proposals to alter the Constitution, ought to go to the people as a matter of course. We believe very strongly-and one of the functions of the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987 that is in this package includes this type of approach-that this Constitution is controlled by the people of this country and it is only the people of Australia who are permitted to change the Constitution. Essentially, what we are about here is to process these Bills so that they may go to the people for their deliberation and vote. We are merely engaged in the preliminary step of providing to the people a series of Bills upon which they may vote. Hence, with regard to the Government's proposals when they were announced, I was able to say on behalf of my Party that in distinction to the way we treat normal legislation, we would be able to support those proposals-before we had seen the legislation. We support those proposals going to the people. Indeed, we have supported previous proposals going to the people for their vote and then engaged in a campaign in the community to convince people that they should not cast their vote in favour of the proposals. I do not think that that is a stance that is too difficult for honourable senators here to understand. It is certainly not too complicated for the people to understand, because on every occasion that I have put that idea forward at a public meeting, it has been accepted by the people because they realise that it is their Constitution, not the Constitution of politicians. The Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988 essentially moves the maximum term of the House of Representatives from three to four years and thereby reduces the Senate term from a maximum of six years to four years. As every speaker in this debate so far has pointed out, senators rarely have a six-year term. I understand that the last person to have it was the previous President of the Senate, who managed to get up a six-year term-and he had to be here for 25 years to manage it. Essentially we are not talking about a reduction of the Senate term because senators do not get those types of terms. That is why the proposal to come forward from the Opposition seems to me extraordinary, that it would be willing to support these types of changes provided there were an eight-year term. Senator Ray, by quoting previous Opposition statements, has shown that the Opposition is not putting up that proposal with any seriousness or consistency. It is just another flurry of arms in an attempt to give itself the semblance of some type of principled stance. On this matter, as has been amply demonstrated by almost every political commentator and newspaper editorial, what the Opposition is doing is taking a short term political stance which has to do with today's politics and not to do with long term constitutional propriety. It is an extraordinary proposition that the Opposition parties will oppose any and every proposition for reform. There was an extraordinary exercise last week when, in an attempt to run yet another furphy over this exercise, those opposite were talking about the possibility of extending the Government's life. Of course, it does not extend the House of Representatives term in any shape or form! If they had bothered to read the second reading speech on this Bill or the explanatory memorandum, they would have found out what the situation is. However, they needed their friend outside to inform them. Presumably he read the second reading speech and with brilliant deduction worked out what the second reading speech said in very clear terms. But that is not the point I wish to raise at this time. The point is that if there had been any substance to the matter, it would have been nice to be able to go to the High Court of Australia to get an advisory opinion. But the last time we attempted to ask for an advisory opinion on a constitutional change, the Opposition campaigned against it. The Opposition campaigned against a very proper and reasonable situation which would have helped us mightily in that context. So those opposite managed quite delicately to hoist themselves on their own petard-on which they are now squirming. Senator Chaney's arguments on this proposition did not seem to have a great deal of substance although, if we had given him another hour, he probably could have worked himself up a few more. But from what I was able to write down, these were his arguments: First, that rotation somehow or other managed to provide stability. That is an extraordinary proposition when we think about it, particularly since the second session of this chamber-that is, the chamber constituted out of the second election-was constituted as a party House with the Australian Labor Party having the balance of power. So we look forward to the day when somebody will be able to say the same thing about us. From that time onwards, decisions in this place have been made, by and large, along party lines. I find that unfortunate; but it is the circumstance. Let us go back to the last election, to look at the notion of stability and see what happened. The House of Representatives had more stability than did the Senate in the last election. Fewer members of the House of Representatives lost their seats than those in the Senate. But I did not understand the House of Representatives to have any rotation. Indeed, I do not think it was the case. Senator Tate now assures me that it is not the case. But somehow stability has been linked with rotation. What happened here in the Senate? Every sitting senator was re-endorsed by his Party, with the sole exception of a Labor Party senator from New South Wales who was re-elected to this chamber. What provides stability in the House of Representatives? The political parties' renominating process provides stability, not the rotation of senators. But the argument is based on an even flimsier ground because the idea of stability can shift with one seat in this chamber and one seat in the House of Representatives. We all remember well the election where the Labor Party, having gained a majority of votes in the House of Representatives, was still one seat short of a majority, the seat of Moreton, which was eventually won on Communist Party second preferences going to the Liberal Party and electing Jim Killen at the time. That was an interesting situation because, if that single seat had gone the other way, the political composition of the Government would have changed completely. The same can happen here. With a change of a couple of seats, a government could get a majority in this place. That is the extraordinary situation. Again, it has nothing to do with rotation; it has everything to do with the political parties. I think that particular argument is one which we will probably not hear very much of again except when the Government wishes to go out and raise insubstantial ghosts in the electorate. On this particular issue, there seems to be a lot of arm waving to claim that it takes away Senate power. When we get to the committee stage, I look forward with great delight to alighting upon the clause of the Bill which takes away the Senate power. It will be very interesting when that clause is drawn out and flourished to public view. The fact of the matter is that no clauses take away Senate power. Indeed, one could very well argue, as Senator Robert Ray has already done, that some quite substantial arguments may be mounted to suggest that the Senate power could end up being enhanced. What is this power of the Senate to which Senator Chaney referred before? He painted an excessively glowing picture of this chamber under the Fraser Government, saying how it was so independent. Quite frankly that is a matter of record and the record stands very clearly. This was not an independent chamber; it was a chamber controlled by a political party. If honourable senators look at some of the votes that were taken in this chamber after the 1980 election and before the changing composition in 1981 when the Australian Democrats gained the balance of power, they will see how the Senate was treated as a party chamber. Bill after Bill was pushed through this place because the Government knew it was about to lose control of the chamber. Control of the chamber is what matters. Anybody in politics who can add up knows that the numbers count at the end of the day. This chamber engages in a number of activities in its consideration of legislation. It scrutinises Bills. Bills go through the committee stage and we look at clause after clause. Those functions would not occur if the Labor Party controlled this chamber. Of course, we would not have that type of scrutiny if that were the case. The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) knows that we would not have that type of scrutiny. Senator Chaney knows that too. That type of scrutiny is here because the Government does not control this chamber. The people have made sure in the last four elections that the government of the day, whether it be the conservative government of the day or the Labor government of the day, did not control this chamber. That state of affairs is mightily frustrating to the government of the day. It was so frustrating to the last Liberal Government that it had to dash off to the people on a concocted proposition because it said at that time that it could not govern. What did it want? It wanted to impose taxes on food, clothing, footwear and building materials. So we had to go to the people. What happened on the second day of that campaign? I would like to remind Senator Chaney of it because he has probably forgotten. On the second day the then Prime Minister of this country, Mr Malcolm Fraser, went on talkback radio and mightily embarrassed the Governor-General by saying that he had no intention-absolutely none-of reintroducing the Bill. A couple of days previously he had gone to the Governor-General and said that he could not run this country because he did not have the passage of this Bill. But we know what is the type of exercise that goes on when the government runs this chamber. The reason this chamber operates differently from the House of Representatives is that it does not have a government majority. It does not really matter, except in one instance, how the Senate majority is made up, provided the government is not in the majority. That instance is when the major opposition party of the day in the House of Representatives has a majority in this place. We know what would happen under those circumstances: we would return to the situation in 1975 when this place could not work. That is what we would have if the opposition party had the majority in this chamber. What do we get down to? The only way this chamber will ever remain as a chamber independent of the government and be a chamber of scrutiny of legislation is if parties such as my own hold the balance of power here. To say that is not necessarily to blow our trumpet. That points to the facts of the matter. The Opposition and the Government know that. No political party in control of the other place and in control of this place would allow the type of scrutiny that currently goes on here to continue. Everybody knows that and yet Senator Chaney wishes to run some other type of furphy around with regard to that matter. I noted Senator Chaney's quotations. I thought it was interesting that we did not have quotes from the media. We did not have quotes from a variety of editorials. Why did we not have these quotes? Why do we have the Opposition's hired hand outside extensively quoted? He is not a media person but is presumably trying to generate a profile for himself whereby he might be able to earn some more money, or whatever is the reason. Why did we not have these quotes? The editors, feature writers et al are scratching their heads as to what the Opposition is engaged in. We had an interesting example of that again today in Paul Kelly's article in the Australian. He was engaging in a bit more head scratching as to what the Opposition was doing. I will quote what he had to say on this issue. I wish to quote it because I think he has put it very well. Mr Kelly stated: The Government is the side proposing longer parliaments; if the Opposition helps to defeat this question, it can scarcely complain if it gets shorter Parliament. I think that that ought to be borne in mind by the electorate. No more will anybody be able to go around whingeing because we have these trumped up propositions from Prime Ministers that we need yet another election. The Opposition, in one fell swoop, would have taken the ground from under any complaint about having elections at any old tick of the clock. On the other hand, if this proposal is carried, there will be a massive moral pressure on the Government to make sure that it goes as close to the longer term as possible. Mr Kelly continues: In the present case the Opposition, searching for non-existing conspiracies, cannot grasp that Mr Hawke's first referendum question has both pros and cons for Labor. What does Labor lose? It loses its powerful Senate position. Labor is the only party with more long-term than short-term senators. So Labor will win from the next half-Senate election, an election that will never occur if the referendum is passed, thereby institutionalising full Senate elections. That is an interesting fact. Senator Chaney skidded around that one and did not bother addressing himself to it because he wanted to draw out the conspiracy theories. It is difficult to get a conspiracy theory when one has a question that actually affects the Labor Party by shooting it almost in the foot. Having got itself in the last election the extra long term senators, it is now prepared to give them away. In the long term the Labor Party may lose from both making the Senate a more powerful chamber and ensuring that neither government nor opposition can ever control it unless the voting system is changed. The Opposition argument that the Senate will be weakened mistakes form for substance. The Senate's power is not a function of the rotation of senators system-the classic defect in the Opposition's case. Again, someone who knows how the Parliament operates can see clearly from the outside that the Opposition's case with regard to this is extremely flimsy. However, the Australian Democrats do not see all good in this proposal. Our policy for fixed term parliaments has been consistent. Senator Ray was correct in pointing out that the Opposition had attacked that on innumerable occasions. I know because I introduced the Bills. The fixed term parliament proposal unfortunately is not one the Opposition will take up; it is not one the Government will take up; nevertheless the Democrats still believe it is one for which the country is looking. It is a pity that the Labor Party, which was so strongly supportive of this idea in opposition, chose to give it away on the whim of the Prime Minister in 1983. In 1983 the Labor Party ended up introducing such a Bill, presumably because the Prime Minister did not notice in those early hectic days that such a Bill was being introduced. When he discovered it, the whole matter was scuttled. It is still by far the better proposal. It can be made to work and to work well in the Australian context. But that is not to be. The Democrats believe the Victorian proposal, which again was mentioned by Senator Ray, is superior to this proposal. It was introduced by the Labor Party in Victoria, not necessarily because it wanted to but because it was an end to a matter of compromise on the upper House. It has more merit than this proposal. In these circumstances, we are left not with a fixed term but with a floating term. One must then ask, in handing over to the Prime Minister that particular power, whether it is a worthy proposition. Hopefully, in the general community debate, that particular point will be focused on-where the people believe the best type of reform can take place; not the type of furphies run by Senator Chaney but the best type of reform we may have, whether that should have been a fixed term exercise or this type of exercise. The Prime Minister also loses some power under this proposal. Yet another give and take exists under that exercise, because one of the extraordinary powers that the Prime Minister has over this chamber is to choose whether there should be a half Senate election or a double dissolution. When this chamber is not controlled by the government, there is always a proposition that there is a trigger for a double dissolution floating around, certainly after the first year or so. We are just coming up to that now, and presumably the trigger mechanisms will be made available to us. The Government has already had the opportunity for some but has not taken them up. Presumably it is waiting for the outcome of this measure. If it fails, a trigger mechanism will be put in place by the end of the year. It always is. Why? Because it gives the Prime Minister the choice of having either a double dissolution or a half Senate election. That is the most extraordinary power the Prime Minister has over this chamber and he will lose it under this proposal. So far as I understand it, that has not been raised in the general debate thus far. Those types of items should be focused on-the actualities of the case as distinct from the type of furphies run around by the Opposition parties. That is the context. They are the types of powers that exist and that is what will occur. We do not have to hypothesise; we do not have to raise conspiracies and chase them up and down the corridors. We have to look at only what actually happens and how power is used in this country. That is what I am referring to: what has happened in the past 10 years. That gives a far better indicator of what is likely to occur in the future. I wait with bated breath for the opposition in the committee stage of the Bill to point to the clauses that are supposed to destroy this chamber. It will not be destroyed unless the opposition parties of the day, whichever they may be, gain control and seek to do again what happened in 1975, or unless its effectiveness is destroyed by the party that has the majority in the House of Representatives again getting control in this chamber and treating it, as it has been treated before on so many occasions, merely as a rubber stamp. Senator Stone —What happened in 1975 was that the people-- Senator MACKLIN —That is the circumstance. Senator Stone has gone off yet again. He should stop twitching and wait for his turn. He is probably on the list and it would do him good to wait a little longer. Patience is a virtue. Senator Tate —He is not on the list. Senator MACKLIN —I am sure that is an oversight. Clearly, the exercise is that this chamber works effectively when it is not controlled either by the major opposition party or the government party. That is the only time when it works as a House of review. One has only to ask oneself why, and the dynamics of politics tell one why. It is as simple as that. Presumably Senator Stone has been in politics long enough now to know about the dynamics of politics and that it is a numbers exercise. I am sure that he knows about the numbers; he is in the National Party in Queensland. If he does not know, he would not have been in this place. Therefore, he is well acquainted with the notion of numbers and politics. Senator Tate —He had to have only one number. Senator MACKLIN —He might have had that lovely share which actually has all the votes. I turn now to the next Bill, which deals with one vote one value. It is a Bill with which I have been well acquainted, having spent such a long period of my political career touting it at every meeting to every group that will listen. Senator Tate —Even captive audiences like this. Senator MACKLIN —Even captive audiences like this one here, as the Minister says. I am glad that people will at last be given the opportunity of saying what they believe about this situation. That is all I have been asking for from the beginning of my campaign in 1983 when I was elected to this place. In 1985 the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill, which I was proposing then, was an item that dealt with the notion that, coming up to the Bicentennial, Australians should look at whether they wished to accept the invitation offered to them by the Constitution in 1901 that State Constitutions were to stay as they are unless the people determine otherwise under the Constitution, and should grasp the nettle and decide, as a democratic country-as a country that has provided so much to the democratic movements around the world, as a country which is looked up to by many countries as an example that should be followed, as a country which probably amongst all countries in the world values freedom, values the right of individuals to express their opinions and values the right to engage in vigorous debate and to have both sides of questions aired for the people to make their judgment-whether we should still allow undemocratic processes for the election of our governments to remain and to initiate, as I believe they do, internal corruption in this country. What emerges as the prime defender of democracy today is that those countries that are not democratic have no resistance whatsoever to organised crime. In a democratic country there is a changing of government, a changing of the people who hold power. The old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely applies regardless of whether it is a dictatorship or a so-called democratically elected government which is elected on rigged boundaries such that it can never be removed. Many countries around the world have that, and they have no bulwark against corruption. The institutionalisation of democracy in today's world must be seen very much in the light of that bulwark against corruption and crime. Those who hold onto power today can be likened to those to whom Mr Whitlam referred in his famous quotation. He said that those people who are the cockerels today may end up as merely feather dusters tomorrow. That, probably more than anything else, should tame the instinct in almost every person to use power, not to the ends of advancing the interests of the people of a country, but possibly for his own ends. That is why one needs to be concerned about democratic processes. That is why one must always pay attention to the means by which our parliaments are elected. That is why we must pay attention to whom we put in power, and that is why I believe the pendulum in countries that are truly democratic swings backwards and forwards at a reasonable rate. The people are very much aware that they do not want to leave governments sitting in office for too long. Recently it happened in New South Wales, and I applaud that. It is a demonstration to any of those who may be tempted to use the power they get at the ballot box to enrich themselves and their friends that the day of accounting will arrive. The people will make their judgment and those who wish to abuse the power they are given by the people will be brought to account. My Bill dealing with one vote one value was the first private member's Bill to be put on the agenda of a constitutional convention. It was part of my strategy at that time to get the Australian Labor Party committed to it and voting for it. The Attorney-General of the day was one of the delegates. I knew that once the Bill was before the convention, the troglodytes who emerge from the woodwork on these occasions would speak against it. One only has to read the proceedings of the Australian Constitutional Convention from 29 July to 1 August 1985 to realise how troglodytic those people can get. Arguments for all sorts of extraordinary propositions are put. If some of those people had been allowed time, they would have got down to the worst of all arguments-that the vote for women was a retrograde step. They argued that the voting age limit should be wound back, that property ought to be used as a means for getting votes and all sorts of extraordinary things that had gone out with the passing of the reform Bills in Britain in the last century. However, those arguments were trotted out again in 1985 at a constitutional convention, and they are enshrined in this document I have with me. I knew that opposition to my Bill would be mounted, and I knew that the Australian Government at that time would have no choice but to vote for it, as it did. By a margin of 39 to 29 votes, in 1985 the Constitutional Convention called on the Government to support the principles contained in my Bill and for a proposal to be put to the Australian people at a nationwide referendum. That was the point at which everyone was locked in. However, it took another three years of hard work by me, by people working within the Labor Party and in a number of other parties to push the Government to finally bite the bullet on this matter. During that time we were taken on a lot of highways and byways. For example, a senator in this place was talking about the notion of whether our Federal powers could be used. There is only one way in which this item can be dealt with, and that is by asking the people to do it. There are no other ways; no other avenues are open. We must ask the people to enshrine in their Constitution what is contained in the proposals. The Constitution governs this country and I remind the people that it governs the States as well as the Commonwealth. Many arguments have been heard during the time my Bill was presented to the Constitutional Convention, the silliest of which is the notion about States rights. I have been suffering under the delusion for a long time that States do not have the right to vote. Presumably, the motion of States rights is the notion to give States the right to vote. I thought votes were held by people. By way of an interjection from a National Party senator a while ago, we were talking about whether sheep should have the right to vote. Presumably they would have two votes because if one has two legs, one has one vote; therefore, because sheep have four legs they would have two votes. I imagine that the National Party's notion of reform would be to reduce the number of votes that sheep have to one. Others work in the real world and that is where only people have the right to vote and not States. It is not a States right to vote; it is the people's right to vote. Honourable senators have heard this extraordinary proposition from Senator Chaney to stop the people voting on their own Constitution, which the Opposition will propose later. Luckily, that will not prevail because the people will be able to vote on their Constitution and they will be able to determine quite clearly that States will never have the right to vote in this country; only people will have that right. As has already been pointed out, there will be an extraordinary campaign of misinformation. The first arguments have been trotted out; Senator Chaney ran a few around, such as the idea that because the Senate is not being reformed or the special position of Tasmania is not being taken away, the Liberal Party will oppose the proposal. Presumably, if we tried to change the Senate and take away the special position of Tasmania, the Opposition would still oppose the proposal. However, that is the reason, Senator Chaney informed us quite seriously in his contribution, why the Opposition is opposing the proposal. Senator Chaney went on in that vein. He gave a series of reasons and with regard to the local government proposal he said, `Either it does not take States rights or the High Court might decide it will. In either case we are opposed to it', it does not matter what the Opposition's argument is; it will oppose the proposal and work out the reasons later. The reasons will have little substance because, for the first time that I can remember since being involved in constitutional change, there has been a willingness on the part of members of the public to address themselves to the issue through the media representatives. The people have always been willing to vote; they have wanted to vote more often. One of the Bills I wish to discuss later-my Bill regarding citizens' initiatives-would give the people the ability to vote more often. We have rarely had the type of support available to us that is available in this instance. As someone suggested to me at the ANZAAS conference, it is interesting to look at how the people have voted in public opinion polls before the lies of politicians overwhelm a campaign. I am not sure whether that is parliamentary, but it is an interesting sentiment. When the people address themselves to the issues before the fear campaigns get going, they have a clear view of what they want. At the end of this campaign, I am sure that that clear view will be maintained. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MACKLIN —Before the suspension of the sittings for dinner I was discussing the second of the five Bills before us, that is, the Bill with regard to one vote one value. I was looking at the types of claims which are being made by Senator Chaney, leading for the Opposition parties, as to why they were opposing the Bill. I have already touched on a number of those, and I now wish to touch on only two more. One is that somehow this particular Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, will be strengthening the hand of Canberra vis-a-vis the States. Again there is no foundation within the Bill or any clauses of the Bill with regard to that item. Common standards are put down to apply. I have already referred to the notion of the Senate and the special position of Tasmania, and suggested that the Opposition's reliance upon those as a possible reason for not supporting the Bill is absolutely extraordinary, considering the fact that if they were included, the Opposition would not support the Bill on those grounds. They are not grounds upon which the Liberal Party can oppose this Bill, since it would not wish to touch those items. They are mere furphies in the whole debate. The situation is that the Commonwealth Parliament will be bound by its electoral laws to obey this, as will the States. In that argument Senator Chaney made comparisons between upper Houses of the States and the Senate. I suggest that here again the facts are not as he presented them. Let us look at the last Federal election, in 1987, with regard to the vote for this chamber. What do we find? We find that the Australian Labor Party scored 43 per cent of the vote and got 42 per cent of the seats. The Liberal-National parties got 42 per cent of the vote and 44 per cent of the seats. That approximation between the percentage of votes and the percentage of seats is not met by any other chamber of any other parliament in this Commonwealth. That is the closest-including the Tasmanian lower House, which is elected by proportional representation-proximation between the percentage of votes and the percentage of seats. I suggest to Senator Chaney and those others who want to run that argument that if every other upper House of a State parliament had got that type of close proximation, there would have been no push anywhere to make any types of changes with regard to the electoral laws governing upper Houses. The facts of the matter are that this chamber is the most democratically elected chamber if one wishes to compare the percentage of votes and the percentage of seats. That is the extraordinary thing about this chamber, which of course is set up on a system which actually seeks to give equal representation to States directly under the Constitution and not equal representation to the people. I intend to refer only briefly to the third Bill, the Constitutional Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988. The point made by Mr Ian Wilson, the Liberal member for Sturt in South Australia, in answer to the Opposition's notion that this is pure tokenism, I think needs to be recorded, and that is that wedding rings are also tokens. I think the point is well taken, that symbols within our society are important and in fact can have a great deal of importance, as Mr Wilson pointed out in that notion of the wedding rings. I think our community does in fact treasure and cherish particular symbols, and I can refer to another one that the Opposition has moved a private member's Bill about, and that is the flag. It is in fact a piece of cloth but, more than that, it is a symbol of something. I see no problem in actually saying that symbols are important in our society. Likewise, the symbolic writing of `local government' into our Constitution is a symbol of our recognition of local government as a valid area of governance in this country, an area that governs so many of the items which are closest to the people in terms of how they live and their daily lives. The local government associations very strongly support this constitutional referendum and in fact, according to discussions that I have had with local government people, are really at a loss to understand the Liberal and National parties' position in regard to that. They say that they intend to go out and campaign very strongly, because they are aware that this will be the one and only chance that local government will ever have of being enshrined in the Constitution. If this question is lost, it will be only generations, way into the future, that will see another referendum. It certainly will not be anybody who is around today. The Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988 is another item that a number of my colleagues wish to address. I wish to make only one comment. Again, in today's newspapers there is an item which I think would characterise the type of debate we are about to have on this item. It is the `In Brief' column of the Australian's letters to the editor, so the Minister for Justice and others in the chamber probably know what type of letter it is. It says that the proposed referendum regarding freedom of religion is alarming and: It will place control of all religious practices in this country in the hands of the Government . . . Let's vote no. That, I think, is the level of the type of debate we are going to have, because that person obviously has not even bothered to read the Bill and does not know that there already is an item in the Constitution with regard to this, and it is an item denying powers to government, not giving powers. At the moment the only Government that has these powers denied to it is the Commonwealth Government. It is within the role of State governments, as sovereign entities, to outlaw religion if they wish or to establish religions if they wish, or to do anything else with regard to religion. This proposition will be denying the rights on that items, not giving them, and likewise with the others. Again Senator Chaney, in his comments, says that it does not do everything and therefore the Opposition is opposing it. This proposition that if we cannot reform the entire world, we are not going to attempt even a small reform, is extraordinary. Reforms are made in the real world step by step. I too have already indicated further reforms that I would like within each of these Bills, but they go some way towards the goal that I would like to achieve and I believe in that need to be supported, because in doing so, if these items are carried we create a new climate for reform, so we can move on. I suggest that the criteria applied to these Bills by the Opposition parties, and by members in the community, should not be whether these in fact reform the entire world, but rather whether they move in the direction of reforms that I would like. That is the type of criterion to be applied. If they move in that direction they ought to be supported. If they do not move in that direction-and that is a legitimate argument that people may put up-they would not be supported. It is the direction in which they move for reform that is the important item. Here we have a number of propositions, one with regard to trial and one with regard to property-and that is particularly important because most of the problems with regard to the acquisition of property occur at State or local government level. The Liberal Party knows this well. Under the Wran Labor Administration in New South Wales there was confiscation of property with no recompense with regard to coal acquisitions. That is probably the most recent blatant example of a State government using its overwhelming sovereign power to confiscate property from private citizens with no recompense. Yet the Liberal Party, which was quite vicious with regard to that legislation, says that it does not want State governments to be controlled. I believe that every government should be controlled. This proposition supports the right to private property. As such I would have thought that the Opposition parties would support it. The fifth Bill before us is the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. The other propositions I have been discussing are those that have come from politicians. In Senator Chaney's words, the Opposition parties believe that the debate is not at the right point-it is only just beginning. Senator Chaney's view is slightly arrogant. In other words, the Opposition takes the view that it has just started something, therefore public debate is just starting. I remind the Opposition that it voted against our Bill in this place about five years ago. We introduced our first Bill on this issue 10 years ago. The Opposition is just getting around to it now. Because it is just getting around to it, it assumes that the public is just getting around to it. Perhaps it should go out and talk to the public on this one, to see whether the public are just getting around to the issue of whether politicians should be able to put up questions with regard to changes to the Constitution or whether the people should do so. My proposition is relatively simple. Under our Constitution it is only the people who are able to change the Constitution. Currently only politicians can pose the question. What we are suggesting is a step forward-a relatively small step forward: The people should be able to propose some of the questions. Of course the people will then make the decisions. How might this be done? The simplest method is tried and true. It was very strongly supported by my own State of Queensland. Prior to Federation Bills were introduced into the Queensland Parliament-unfortunately they were not proceeded with because of a number of local issues at the time-urging a vote against the Constitution on a number of grounds. I have already mentioned one ground in a previous debate-if it did not enshrine universal suffrage, which is rather interesting because that is what we are attempting to do now. The second ground was because it did not have a citizens' initiative proposal. It would be nice in terms of the history of my State if, 88 years on, those types of propositions went to the people, to bring our Constitution up to date-that is, up to 1899. That was when there was a major debate. At that time many of the States of the United States adopted a citizens' initiative proposal. The end of the Western world has not happened. The parliamentary system still operates in all the States of America. It is not affected by the citizens' initiative proposal. There are good arguments for suggesting that it enhances it. As I said at the beginning of my speech, before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, we must always be on the outlook for new methods of improving the democratic life of our country. We must constantly work upon democracy. We must not think that we are the ultimate and that our system is as far as we can go. History teaches us that that sort of arrogance is always misplaced. Improvements can always be made. They can be made in the Australian democratic system. They will be made at some time in the future. One such improvement is to incorporate the people more into the initiation process. We have a representative system in Australia. We have used and developed it well. But now we ought to look beyond it. One thing that is evident in most public debates about politics is the problem of so-called apathy. I do not believe that the Australian electors are apathetic. The problem of apathy is that people will not do something. The difficulty with an analysis of apathy is that it is identical to an analysis of powerlessness. If people are powerless they do not do anything, either. A correct analysis of the political life of Australia is not that the people feel apathetic or are apathetic; it is that they feel powerless and are powerless. They say, quite rightly, `In 1983 we elected an Australian Labor Party government that had an anti-uranium policy and it has managed to sell more uranium than the previous Fraser Government'. That is the type of powerlessness they feel. When they vote for politicians they do not get the platform they voted for. They voted for a Fraser government that put forward a whole series of propositions and eventually had to vote it out of office because it did not bother fulfilling any of them. Then they voted for a Labor Party government that managed to fulfil most of the promises put by the Fraser government. That is what I mean by `powerless'. We are about to have another broken promise. After going to the people in 1987 strongly on the promise that it would not introduce higher education fees and so forth, this Labor Party Government is about to renege on that promise, amongst others, and implement a policy that the Liberal Party went to an election on in 1987. That is the sort of powerlessness people feel. The reason they are turned off politics is the cynicism that has tended to get built in. How might that be rectified? It will not be rectified by political parties or politicians. That is evident. It has to be rectified by a new mechanism. I believe that the new mechanism should be one whereby the people can intrude into the political process. They could intrude at various stages, either at the constitutional level, with regard to putting a stay on legislation passed or proposing legislation. The Queensland Government is looking at some of these proposals now. I congratulate it on doing so. Advances can be made across the board in all States and at the Commonwealth level. Something I have been suggesting and something my Party has been suggesting for 10 years, with all due respect to Senator Chaney who has just heard about it-we have had a Bill in this chamber for that length of time-is well and truly on the public agenda. There is worry about whether items that come up are right wing, left wing or whatever else. I suggest that these are mere furphies. It is merely the proposition or question that we are talking about. Who gets to vote? Exactly the same people who get to vote now-the people of Australia. The people of Australia are the democracy. One cannot have any in principle argument against the people being able to propose a question in the only area in which they are able to make the sole determination. If one takes objection to the vote of the people one takes objection to their voting in governments. How can they be allowed to vote in governments? How can they be allowed to do this or do that? That is an absurd corner to paint oneself into. We have to put aside those arguments. We have to accept that the people's voice is sovereign. If they wish to propose a question and support it by way of referendum, then that is what they want. One does not necessarily have to agree with it personally. It would be pretty silly of me to say that I have agreed with the results of the last few elections. One does not personally have to agree that that is the right or proper course. All that one has to say is that the legitimate course in a democracy should be followed and one can then go out and campaign to try to have it overturned-as in fact the notion of a loyal opposition in our parliamentary democracy does; it accepts the voice of the people at an election and then goes out and campaigns for three years to try to overturn it. These are important items. The debate will go for a long time here. But, in the end, this debate is not all that important. What will be important is the campaign, and what will ultimately be important, as it should be in any true democracy, is that the voice of the people will finally be heard on these questions. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.21) —The Senate is debating cognately the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988 and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988, put forward by the Government to alter the Constitution, and the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987 put forward by the Australian Democrats to alter the Constitution. This afternoon we heard a brilliant statement of the reasons why the Liberal and National parties are proposing that the people of Australia should vote no to each of the proposals. That speech, which was made by Senator Chaney, was a brilliant speech. I urge those honourable senators who did not hear that speech for some reason or other to get a copy of the Hansard in order to read it. Since then we have heard Senator Robert Ray lead for the Government in favour of the proposals and Senator Macklin lead for the Democrats in favour of the proposals. It has always been my experience that whenever the Australian Labor Party is in the process of being defeated in a debate it resorts to personal attacks. This afternoon we heard Senator Robert Ray make a series of personal attacks on various members, present and former, of the Liberal and National parties in Canberra-Fraser, Anthony, Sinclair, Chaney, Howard, Boswell and Lewis-which, as I have said, is a general indication that the Labor Party feels that it is losing the debate. But I must say that Senator Robert Ray, as is usual with him, made those attacks with a certain joie de vivre, a certain humour and a certain lack of unpleasantness. I cannot say the same for Senator Macklin. Quite frankly, I found Senator Macklin's personal attacks on members of the Liberal and National parties emotional, hypersensitive, and at times irrational. I wondered from time to time what Senator Macklin was on about. On the other hand, Senator Macklin turned at the very end of his speech towards some criticism of the Government for its very serious breaches of promises which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Labor Party made to the people of Australia at the last election. Senator Macklin talked about the so-called feeling of powerlessness of the people of Australia, with no real criticism of the members of the Labor Party, demonstrating once again, as I have said frequently in this place, that since the retirement of Senator Chipp the Democrats have become the extreme left wing of the Labor Party in this place. The sooner they and the left wing of the Labor Party amalgamate and form a party that the people of Australia are able to recognise, the better. I do not intend to continue with personal attacks on these people. I have responded in the way I have only because, quite frankly, Senator Macklin got up my nostrils with his deep personal attacks on the Liberal Party of Australia. I had to make those few remarks but I now intend to turn to a sensible discussion of the measures which are now before the Parliament. The Government of this country is about to spend $30m on constitutional reform proposals which it is putting forward without any genuine attempt to find some bipartisan support for them. I put to the people of Australia as a fact that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) asked the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, to come to the Prime Minister's office in order to discuss some of these matters and the possibility that the Opposition parties might support them. At that meeting Mr Howard was presented with certain proposals. In relation to the first matter, he made a possible counter proposal that he would be prepared to take back and discuss with his Party and the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General agreed to consider that counter proposal. But the next thing that Mr Howard knew was that about four hours after that discussion the Government announced what it was going to do and did not bother to give us any opportunity to consider the alternative, nor did it give any consideration to that alternative. Senator Tate —What was the alternative? Senator LEWIS —It was not an unreasonable alternative. I do not mind admitting that it was one that I would have opposed, but that was my point of view. Mr Howard was prepared to say to the Prime Minister and to the Attorney-General that he would be prepared to take back to his parties for consideration a proposal whereby we give a four-year term to members of the House of Representatives and two terms of the House of Representatives to the Senate. He was prepared to take that back and consider it but he was not given the opportunity to have any discussion within the Party room because the Government immediately announced what it intended to do on all these issues. On the question of endeavouring to achieve some genuine bipartisan support, in 1985 the Government abandoned the constitutional conventions which were being held and which were certainly the best mechanism for seeking some common ground. In fact, the Government has gone even further and has abandoned its own $6m Constitutional Commission. I have great difficulty in seeing how that Commission could have achieved some bipartisan proposals but there was a possibility that, if its recommendations could have been treated as some sort of general matter for discussion and a constitutional convention could have been held in order to discuss those matters, there would have been agreement on some measures. I refer, for example, to the Liberal and National parties' continual pushing forward of the proposition that, where the Senate blocks measures from the House of Representatives, the Senate ought to go to an election. There were some possibilities along those lines. But this Government is not interested in any bipartisan support. It is taking this step for the purely political reason that it is in real trouble out in the electorate and this is an opportunity to divert people's attention away from the Government's mismanagement of the economy and to get people thinking about something other than the Government's current mismanagement. In the process the Government is putting dishonest questions to the people-questions which do not set out the genuine nature of the proposals which are contained within the Bills. Indeed, the first question which the Government is putting to the people is not only dishonest but also sinister, and I will come to that in a few moments. Let me quote, as I have in debates previously in this place on constitutional reform, from Woodrow Wilson. I have quoted this repeatedly before and I hope that I never cease quoting this, even when the Liberal and National parties are in government: Liberty has never come from the Government . . . the history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. Senator Tate —Hear, hear! Senator LEWIS —`Hear, hear', says Senator Tate. I hope that he takes that up with his Party when he talks about these constitutional changes. The history of liberty is the history of limiting government power, not increasing it. These proposals are all about increasing government power, not limiting it. I will also quote from an essay by Professor Gordon Reid, who is now the Governor of Western Australia. It is an extract from a revised text of an address delivered to the 1978 summer school of the Australian Institute of Political Science when Professor Reid was Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Professor of Politics at the University of Western Australia. At that stage there was some concern about whether the political system could cope. That was the theme of the conference at which Professor Reid spoke. In his opening remarks he said: To give you an introductory glimpse of my findings, they are: that the elected Parliament is a weak and weakening institution; that the Executive Government is the principal beneficiary of the Parliament's decline; and that the Judiciary is tending to Parliament's decline; and that the Judiciary is tending to compete with the Executive Government in exploiting the Parliament's weakness . . . I think that sums it up very well for those people who understand that there is a fundamental difference between the Executive Government and the Parliament. Because we have adopted the Westminster system in Australia, with the Executive Government being elected by the Parliament, there is a tendency for the people not to really grasp that their representative is the elected Parliament of the people, not the Government. The Government stands in the pseudo role of the former monarch who dictated to the people what he was intending to do. The Parliament is the people's place-in this Parliament, both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Parliament-in the United States it is called the Congress-is the people's place. This is where the rights of the people are protected, not by governments. Governments are out to exercise their powers. We have here another example of a Government desperately endeavouring, as I have said, to divert the people's attention and, in the process, to take away some of the fundamental powers of the people's place, the Parliament, and, in particular, this House, the Senate of Australia. The basic objections to the proposal are quite simple. I turn to the first question, the one which I have described as not only a dishonest question but also a sinister question. The question is: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament? In effect, the proposal is to increase the terms of members of the House of Representatives from three years to four years and reduce the terms of senators from six years to four years. But in truth, and here is the sinister part of it, the proposal sets out to give the Prime Minister and the government of the day-I say this as a Liberal, whilst recognising that it would apply also to a Liberal Prime Minister-control over the Senate. This proposal destroys the fixed term of the Senate and effectively introduces a permanent double dissolution situation. It abandons the system of rotation of senators' terms and removes the restrictions on a Prime Minister calling early elections. That is the crucial point: it removes any restriction on the Prime Minister calling an early election. It will destroy the fixed term of the Senate. The Labor Party says that as part of its policy it would like to have a fixed term for the House of Representatives. It has a fixed term for the Senate, and it wants to destroy it. Why would it want to destroy the fixed term of the Senate if it were not because it can see some fundamental gain in removing that fixed term? Destroying the fixed term of the Senate makes it easier for any Federal government to turn the Senate into simply a rubber stamp. Any government could dissolve the Senate whenever it wished to have an early House of Representatives election. Under this proposal there is no question that the Prime Minister will have to wait four years. He can simply call an election whenever he is able to persuade the Governor-General that the time is ripe for him to have an election and then both Houses of the Parliament will go to the people straightaway. The Prime Minister can have an election at any time. That means that if, for example, on the Australia Card proposal, the Prime Minister had got a bit cranky because the Senate was being difficult about it, he could have immediately called an election and said to the Governor-General, `I need a mandate to put through my proposal for the Australia Card; so we are going to have an election'. Then both Houses of the Parliament would have gone to the people and the Senate's ability in any way to delay or block that measure or to put it to a committee, to enable the people of Australia to understand what it was all about, would have gone by the bye. He would not have had to force a double dissolution. He could have simply taken both Houses of the Parliament out for an election. This proposal, put forward by the Government, by undermining the constitutional independence of the Senate would make it easier for any Federal government to ignore the less populous States. It would make it easier for Federal governments to hold early elections. In fact, it would be likely to result in more frequent elections. The Labor Party would have us believe that by pushing for a four-year term there will be fewer elections. But the truth is that the fixed term of the Senate has in the past pushed governments into having longer terms before they go to the people. Senator Ray conceded today that the fact that there is a fixed term for the Senate means that the Prime Minister has to be cautious about when he calls a House of Representatives election or he might end up having a Senate election by itself. There have been only four Senate elections by themselves throughout our history. That is because of the fixed term of the Senate. Under this proposal all of that need for caution would be gone and it would be easy for the Prime Minister to call more frequent elections, not fewer elections. What really annoys me is this talk about the Labor Party having some sort of fixed term policy and trying to have fewer elections. If the Prime Minister were fair dinkum about this he could announce tonight the date of the next Federal election. There would be no problem with that. He could say, `I am going to have the next Federal election on the first Saturday in December 1989'. That would fit in with the window of the Senate; a period of 12 months before the next Senate term expires. It would fit in with the Prime Minister's term. It would not be three years; it would be only about 2 1/2 years since the last election. If the Prime Minister wanted to have fixed terms he could announce now when he is going to call an election. Of course, he will not do that. All Prime Ministers, whether Liberal or Labor, want to keep to themselves the power to control the date on which they will go to the people. There is a very simple solution to all of these problems. We do not have to change the Constitution, go through all this rigmarole and spend $30m. If the Prime Minister really wants to solve this problem-that is, if he does not want to have a lot of elections and if he wants both Houses of the Parliament to go to the people together-he can announce now that the next election will be held on the first Saturday in December 1989, or whenever he likes within that 12-month period before the term of the Senate expires, which is 30 June 1990. He can announce any date for an election within 12 months of 30 June 1990. Then the people of Australia would know when we are going to have the next election. I ask the people, if they have any doubts about this, why do they not ask those people who are supporting these proposals this simple question: Under this Bill will a government be able to have an early election for both Houses of the Parliament; will the Prime Minister be able to call an election for both Houses of the Parliament whenever he chooses? The simple answer is yes, of course. The problems formerly associated with the proposals for simultaneous elections, which the people of Australia have now thrown out on, I think, four occasions, are compounded by the destruction of the basic principle of rotation of senators. Let me quote something that Professor Geoffrey Sawer said in evidence to the Select Committee on the Constitution Alteration (Avoidance of Double Dissolution Deadlocks) Bill back in 1950. He said: There is no point in having a House of review unless you have some degree of difference between the points of view of the Houses, and you get that more with the staggered system of elections. That is why our founding fathers set up this situation whereby we would have a six-year fixed term for the Senate and a three-year non-fixed term for the House of Representatives, with the Senate elections being conducted within a period of 12 months prior to the expiration of the six-year term. That would then enable the Prime Minister to have that period of 12 months in which to call an election at some time suitable to the people of the nation. In fact, in our history this has turned out to be-increasingly more so-for the benefit of the Prime Minister of the day. With a double dissolution election available to a government at its pleasure, there are no constitutional or practical constraints on a Prime Minister who wants an election at any time it suits him. At present, with only half of the Senate required to go to an election, there may be practical examples of sufficient force-for example, the substantial loss of Senate seats-to make a government think twice about calling an election, and the constitutional limitation on calling an election for the House of Representatives and half the Senate at whim, that is, the one-year barrier to calling Senate elections, is lost. I draw the attention of honourable senators to section 57 of the Constitution, which provides the mechanism to resolve genuine deadlocks between the Houses with that section's built-in delay mechanisms on the hasty calling of an election. I point out that that provision will no longer operate as a constraint on the Government. As I have indicated, the Government, on a matter such as the Australia Card, could simply say, `The Senate has opposed this measure and we are intending to go to the people of Australia for a mandate to push this measure through'. There would be no delaying mechanism and no opportunity for the senators of Australia to get out into their States and explain to the people of Australia what the Government was trying to pull on them. We would all be stuck here debating this sort of matter. The Prime Minister of the day would then appeal to the people and, as we found at the last election, the issue before the Parliament would probably not get any real run at all. The Prime Minister would be talking to the people about economic or other matters and the crucial issue before the people of Australia that the Senate was trying to deal with would go in the hurly-burly of the election. Without all that delay mechanism the people would suddenly have something thrust upon them which it might take them 12 or 18 months to find out about. But in due course they would discover that they had once again been squeezed unmercifully, to their detriment, by the Federal Government. Let me say that I am opposed to eight-year terms for senators. Frankly, I am also opposed to four-year terms for members of the House of Representatives. I have already told honourable senator what I think ought to happen. The founding fathers thought about this matter carefully. They were not prepared to give eight- or 10-year terms to senators. They were prepared to give senators only six-year terms and members of the House of Representatives, therefore, three-year terms. My view has always been that three-year terms for members of the House of Representatives are perfectly all right, if only Prime Ministers would observe the three-year term and not call early elections for their own benefit or the benefit of their parties. As I have said, there is a simple solution: Within two to three months of a Prime Minister being elected, the Governor-General could announce in his Speech that his Prime Minister had advised him of the date of the next election. He could then name the election date. That would solve all the problems. Senator Tate —How does that square with section 57? Senator LEWIS —Senator Tate raises a technical problem. Of course, if there were some major confrontation at any stage, it would have to be overcome by way of double dissolution. What I am saying is that the Prime Minister, through the Governor-General's Speech, could say, `Unless there is some major confrontation between the Houses of the Parliament, the next election will be held on the first Saturday in December, three years hence'. I pick the first Saturday in December three years hence because this seems to be the date on which the people of Australia like to have a Federal election. It is before Christmas, it is not in the middle of winter and it seems to be a convenient date. That would probably be the date if we had fixed terms. The Government talks about having genuine three-year terms. It is saying, `If you give us a four-year term, we will get close to a three-year term'. That is what this Government is on about. My time has almost expired and I have really touched only on the arguments on the first proposal. In the last two minutes available to me let me very quickly refer to the other questions. The proposal for allegedly fair and democratic elections, claimed to be one vote one value, is a nonsense in many ways because the Federal Government is saying to the States, `We do not have one vote one value in Canberra but you are going to have it in the States'. We simply say to the people of the States that it is their decision. They elect their State government and it should be able to determine what policy its people want in their elections, whether it be a 10 per cent allowance up or down or a 5 per cent allowance up or down. If the people do not like the Government that they have, they should do what the people of New South Wales did in the last election-throw it out and put in a government that they want and overcome the problem in that way rather than asking the Federal Government to impose upon the States a constitutional requirement which would be of great concern because the proposal put forward by the Government does not deal with the crucial question of gerrymanders. I point out that New South Wales allegedly has one vote one value but Nick Greiner needed over 52 per cent of the vote to win. At the last Federal election the coalition parties needed 52.3 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to win office. So what is all this talk about one vote one value being allegedly imposed by the Constitution? There would be great problems. I ask the people of the States to solve that problem with their State governments. The proposal on the recognition of local government is purely and simply tokenism. There is no definition of local government, so the whole proposal becomes meaningless with no guarantees for the benefit of local government. Finally let me refer to the so-called freedoms. They are all put in one question so that we are obligated to have freedom of religion with these other freedoms. It is my belief that freedom of religion will create great difficulty. It would mean we would have to suffer such things as Scientology and have constitutionally protected tax rorts. I know there are a number of tax rort systems designed to be based on a religious proposal. We are also concerned that that may validate extreme religious practices-and I refer in particular to circumcision of young girls. The coalition parties have considered all these issues and generally we believe that the correct answer is to vote no on all of them. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(8.51) —These Constitution alteration Bills have the purpose of modernising the Constitution by making a number of changes: a four-year term for the House of Representatives; a reduced term of four years for the Senate; one vote one value; recognition of local government in the Constitution; the right of people to fair compensation for land resumed; the right to trial by jury and the freedom of religion. They also contain the denial of the right of a State to create a religion and use that for its purposes. These Bills have been put before the Parliament by this Australian Labor Party Government and we support them. The suggestions for the issues contained in these Bills are contained in a recommendation from a committee of prominent Australians who are concerned for our nation in our times and into the future. People will decide these referendum questions. That really gets to the bottom line of democracy. They will not have to vote for a government which has maybe a hundred policy points, 55 of which they agree with and 45 of which they do not. They will be looking at specific issues which will create a framework for this nation by way of the Constitution and its changes. That framework will have to be abided by by any government, whatever its political colour. This will be an occasion when people will make a decision and virtually make that framework for laws. It is not an occasion on which some people for a particular reason, in this place or in the House of Representatives, because they might owe somebody something or because they might have a pigheaded view about an issue, will say that we must vote for a matter, based on the decision of a number of people. This referendum will mean millions of people out there in the community making a decision. Senator Chaney quoted some person, I think his name was McGuinness, who wrote for the Australian Financial Review. According to Senator Chaney, he said that our Constitution is robust and still appropriate for today-not in those words, but that is what he meant. Robust it may be, but that it is sufficiently encompassing to serve our needs I would dispute. To suggest that a constitution created by politicians at the beginning of this century, from six different British colonies, with boundaries that were created by people who had some axe to grind or some special interest to serve, is appropriate today when we have a multicultural community, is absolute nonsense. We had a white Australia policy. We no longer have one and neither should we. Women were treated as chattels-they no longer are, mostly. Neither should they be. They are now well on the way to showing their capacity to contribute even more to our community than they have in the past. I appeal to them to vote yes to these referendum proposals to show their clear understanding of their determination to help Australia into the modern age. We once had highly protected industries; this is no longer the case, as it should not be. Changes are taking place which were brought about by this Labor Government. Yes, we are changing-and our society needs change. Our Constitution needs to change to facilitate the dynamic movement forward of our nation. If members of the Opposition want to be troglodytes, as they have been in the past, so be it. The people of this nation will continue to reject them for their opposition to these referenda. The proposal to extend the term for the House of Representatives is sound as it will create more stable government. Long term planning of the economy and the creation of wealth which will finance the necessary social programs are important in areas of education, health and income for retirees. Senator Lewis talked about early elections. He ought to know. The Liberal and National parties have had a lot of practice at that because they have been in power for a lot longer than has the Labor Government in the last 40 years and they have had a tremendous number of early elections-for reasons that would suit the Liberal Party and its interests. Included in this referendum is a shortening of senators' terms from six to four years. It is a very unselfish attitude that honourable senators should express, as I do now-it is a reasonable proposition. I certainly would not accept that anyone should be elected in this day and age for eight years and be allowed to remain in that position for that time without answering to the people. Those opposite say that this will reduce the power of the Senate. I am afraid that I have seen the power of the Senate used in a way that was spiteful and negative in terms of the interests of this community. Some people say this is a States House. If anyone wants to suggest that this is a States House, I would ask him to prove that to me by telling me the number of occasions on which senators from one State have voted together on an issue. The Senate has not been a States House, almost from the beginning. People vote on party lines. People say they want the Senate to be a House of review. I do not see that that will be affected by bringing the two terms together. It will be a decision of the people whether they want a House of Representatives with the majority of a particular party in power and want those laws it passes to come to the Senate and also be passed or whether they want to pay fairly good salaries to and provide resources for the people in the House of Representatives to produce laws and then have the Senate reject them. That does not seem to be a sensible way of going about things. People will decide at the ballot box whether they want that and they will decide that at a time when the issues are before them. They can decide whether to vote together for all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and not have to put up with half the senators staying when the people want to be rid of them. The proposition bringing the voting for the two Houses together is sensible and will not interfere with the power of the Senate or its ability to review legislation, if that is the way the people wish it. One hears a very interesting argument from the Opposition about the one vote one value principle. I looked up a few figures about Queensland-the home of democracy so we are told by the National Party there. That is not the attitude of the Liberal Party. Mr Innes, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, is most unhappy about the attitude expressed by the Federal Liberal Party on one vote one value. From the most recent figures I was able to procure, the number of qualified voters was 1,563,294. There were 89 seats. That is an average of 17,565 voters. Currently, the highest number of voters in a particular seat or division is 22,987 and the lowest is 7,909. No-one can tell me that by any standard or any test of fairness one electorate should have three votes for every person-even in Queensland sheep and cattle do not get a vote, though I suggest some people in the country areas might like that. The proposition contained in the referendum means there still could be a very great difference in numbers. We could have seats with 19,000 people, in round figures, and others with 15,000-but certainly not with 22,000 and 7,000. I added the numbers of people in eight seats together and found that 74,158 people can elect eight parliamentarians in Queensland but for another eight seats it takes 174,476 people. So one person's vote is worth 43 per cent of another person's. Comparing the high and low numbers of voters in seats, the value in the 7,909-people seat is 34 per cent. By any standard of fairness people would have to agree that one vote one value is a splendid idea. Honourable senators opposite have a right not to agree with that, but they should not stand up in the Senate and suggest that nobody should agree with it. I have read that at one time only landowners voted and there was no vote for women. Things have changed. Everyone gets a vote, including women-and there are even more of them in Queensland than men. The one thing that we have not got is one vote one value. If we are to have a fair electoral system, having accomplished the other things, we must have one vote one value. People in the country defend their right to have this loading so that it takes fewer of them to elect a member of parliament. They might get twice as much value for their vote, but I cannot see country people getting paid twice as much in wages; in fact, they get less than people in the city. People say that it is more difficult to service the large electorates. I say: Provide the resources so that those electorates can be serviced. We should not have one politician for only a few thousand electors. We should provide the resources for those electorates to be serviced. People from all sides of politics talk about the need for democracy, though I notice that members of the National Party talk about it less than others. Democracy is not about electing someone to parliament for three years and letting him do what he likes; it is about being involved in society, in everyday life. Supplying the necessary resources for the far-flung electorates could enable people to become more active in that way and do much of the work that they now wish to pass on to parliamentarians. In that respect we come to another important part of the propositions for referenda-the recognition of local government. Clearly there is no national recognition in any way at this time. The State governments want the councils to be the creatures and servants of the State governments. They want to be able to sack them if it does not suit them. Senator Chaney made a point about how State governments would be able to get rid of corrupt councils if these changes were made. How do we get rid of corrupt State governments? I do not suggest that one would be more correct than the other in its approach to the job, but I do suggest that the councils are a vital element of our structure of government. They are closer to the people. Councillors know more people by their Christian names and have more involvement with them and are more accessible to them than are State and Federal parliamentarians. There are people in this House who have carried out responsibilities in that area and they would have had that experience. It has been suggested that State governments could be eliminated and costs could be reduced by having the local councils carrying a greater responsibility. It has not been suggested in this chamber, but I have heard it suggested elsewhere. I am very much inclined to the idea of giving local councils more authority and having the Federal government looking after the rest, thereby getting rid of the State governments. That seems to me to be a good idea. We would have a nation governed at less cost. Local government is indispensable and it should be recognised in our Constitution. On the question of the freedom of religion we hear a person named Ahern from Queensland-I understand that he is the Leader of the National Party up there-making ridiculous comments about such freedom allowing crank organisations to start up. Crank organisations can probably start up now, but if they infringe the laws in any way they have to be answerable to this Parliament and to the various States. I think it should be made clear in the Constitution that there is freedom of religion and all governments should have to work within that aspect of the Constitution. I refer now to compensation for land acquisition and trial by jury. My understanding of the utterances of various people in the Opposition over many years is that they agree with the proposition that we should have the right to trial by jury for certain crimes and that people should be properly compensated for land acquisitions. All of a sudden, because of some cheap political advantage that they hope to accrue, the Opposition is opposed to that. The people of the nation who are going to vote on these questions do not agree with them. Before closing I must draw attention to one other point which I think has been made in this House; it was certainly made in the House of Representatives. We as a government, in developing this idea of having a four-year term for the Senate, would get a cheap advantage out of it in that we would get an extension of the life of the Senate for six months. I remind the Opposition that on 25 February 1977, when the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill was being debated, Senator Button pointed out to the then Government, the present Opposition, that the then Senate would get an extra six months. Apparently if the present Opposition is in office and puts up such a proposal it is wonderful but if we put up such a proposal it is not. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) made clear in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives that that advantage, if one could call it that, was available, but he did not say that it would be taken. I suggest that it probably would not be taken, but if the term did run over it would be for some machinery reason. As far as the record of this Government is concerned, it has nothing to fear about going to the electorate. However, our plans have been made on the basis of a three-year term and we have a clear understanding of what we are doing and when results should show. Obviously we are keen to run our present three-year term. We are also keen to go to a four-year term to allow for more stable government. In conclusion, the people of this country should examine each of the proposals in the referenda. These proposals are intended to help this community in the future, to create fair play where it does not exist so far and to recognise people who have gone without recognition for so many years. It is something that everybody should support. I do not suggest that we should just go out looking for a simple majority; we should go out looking for a large majority. I believe that we can achieve that. I really think that at the end of the debate the conscience of a lot of the people in the Opposition will probably influence them to come on side with us, if not wholly, certainly partially. I commend the Bills and ask the Senate to carry them. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.08) —Unlike previous speakers, I will confine my remarks in this cognate debate almost totally to one of the Bills before us, a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government, called the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988. As local government spokesperson for the Australian Democrats, I have consulted widely with local government, particularly in recent times since the referendum proposals have surfaced. Like people in local government, I am astonished that the Opposition appears to presume to speak in this debate for local government. It seems to me be an extraordinary arrogance as all we have had from the Opposition in recent times has been a series of policy vacuums which have resulted in some pretty interesting things from time to time. Between sittings in the past month in particular I have been travelling in all areas of my home State of Victoria except Gippsland, where I will be going if we ever complete this session and get out of this place. I have listened to and talked with local government representatives both in regional cities and in some pretty small rural areas. The comments that I will make in this debate tonight reflect what I have heard from the local government people in those visits. I was not really surprised when I read in the Australian of 12 May that the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) had expressed `amazement and disappointment at the coalition decision which had just been announced to campaign against all four referendum questions'. As I recall, on that particular day or very shortly thereafter I talked to some of the local government bodies in Victoria. I was also not surprised to find on the front page of the Canberra Times this morning a prominent article headed `Opposition about-face', in which the Australian Local Government Association, having had a look at the debate on this Bill in the House of Representatives, came out with a strong statement calling the Opposition stance an about-face. In the article the Association pointed to past statements by coalition party members and leaders supporting constitutional recognition. I shall refer to only one of those statements, which I believe was referred to earlier in the debate, in which it was revealed that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, by courtesy of a letter tabled in the House of Representatives by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) had written to his constituents in support of constitutional recognition of local government. I am aware that many Opposition politicians from Mr Howard down have done just that very thing. At this point local government people are waking up to what is happening in that process. Most particularly the Australian Local Government Association seems to have been rather put off, if you like, by the parliamentary debate which, it says in its statement, had been peppered with extraordinary claims about the implications of this Bill. It is worth exploring briefly some of that parliamentary debate to see just what it is that has caused a further reaction from the Australian Local Government Association which obviously, as I have, has had a good look at the debate in the House of Representatives. Some of the cynicism that surrounds the attitude of the community towards politicians and towards the processes of the Parliament can be explained by this sort of debate, a debate that honourable senators should remember comes in the context of a belief, until this point, by many if not most in local government that the Opposition would be in support of this particular proposition when it came before the people as it is now about to. The shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders, Mr Reith, in leading the debate made, amongst other points, the point that this proposal is a trick to con the local government vote. In spite of his saying that, the honourable member quoted the provisions of the Bill and the provisions of the Bill clearly show that, contrary to this sort of claim, the provisions of the proposed constitutional change clearly place State government in exactly the same position as it is now in relation to local government. It simply takes it one step further and ensures that local government is named and has status in the Constitution. I shall deal with that point later. I agree with one point made by Mr Reith in the debate when he pointed to a problem that occurs frequently in local government, that is, that the Federal Government gives local government some new functions and funds it but in a year or two local government finds that the funding is withdrawn and local government ends up holding the baby. That is not exclusive to this Government or even to Federal governments. I support Mr Reith's raising that issue but it is a separate issue to the question of constitutional recognition of local government. However, while talking about local government, the issue is certainly worth making note of. The Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair, in his speech, protested: We are not opposed to constitutional recognition of local government. His next sentence is rather revealing: Indeed, most States already have that. No-one is disputing that; what this particular Bill is attempting to do is to put forward a constitutional change to ensure that local government has status at the Federal level as well. Mr Sinclair talked about both conservative parties having a real respect for local government. Some of the material I shall read into the record shortly shows that, whilst Mr Sinclair might say there is great respect, that message is not getting through to local government. He went on to suggest that the Labor Party is using this legislation as a very good opportunity to aggregate power. I shall return to that point later. The honourable member for Parkes, Mr Cobb, spoke about the centralising of power, picking up the point made by Mr Sinclair. That is particularly interesting when one reflects on the contribution of Mr Reith in which he protested that this is mere tokenism. That protest is repeated often by other Opposition speakers and no doubt will be in this debate as it is pursued in the Senate. Certainly that is a contradiction in the argument of the Opposition. If it is tokenism, how can it possibly do anything about changing the position of power let alone centralise power. If the Opposition is going to bring the wrath of local government down upon its head, as it has done, the very least it could do is to get its arguments square. I am very interested in another of Mr Cobb's comments. He said: . . . support for this referendum virtually came only from local government people and from no-one else. If there is to be a referendum before the people concerning local government, surely it is entirely appropriate that local government be the group to endorse it. Who is more affected than those groups of people who administer what I suggest is the most significant tier of government in terms of person-to-person contact and in terms of grassroots understanding of issues at local level-local government. If local government is to be affected by constitutional change, surely we should welcome the fact and not deride the fact that it is local government that is supporting this move. I refer next to the contribution of the honourable member for Braddon, Mr Miles, in the debate in which he drew a picture of a situation resulting from this referendum proposal in which we would not have just Premiers conferences but lord mayors conferences, mayors conferences, shire presidents and wardens conferences, and so on. The Local Government Association has had something to say about this; it found it quite astonishing and somewhat of a joke. It is interesting that the honourable member for Gippsland, Mr McGauran, in his contribution, said that like it or not local government is a creature of State governments. He is just condemning local government to being the creature of State governments in perpetuity. That does not indicate to me the sort of support which his Leader, Mr Sinclair, insisted local government has from the National Party. Mr McGauran went on to talk about the concerns that the third tier of government has about being under threat. He said: . . . and to my knowledge it is not under threat from the Government; it is certainly not from the Opposition-and any fears it has about guaranteeing its future existence should be directed towards State governments. Here I agree with Mr McGauran. I shall give two examples which are probably bipartisan in this instance. We see that there is and has been abuse of the power that State governments have over local governments. That is one of the reasons why many of us, including local government, are supporting constitutional recognition. An example of the abuse of power is the turfing out of the Sydney City Council by the Unsworth Government for goodness knows how long. No particular impropriety was even alleged except that the Council had the temerity to disagree with various State Government policies. There is demonstration of a lack of commitment to local government in my State of Victoria where a restructuring process was aborted because of the general incompetence of the Minister at the time and by the chairman of the local government commission charged with the task. Even now many councils are being subjected to unprecedented interference in the way they are elected. Not to appear one-sided in this debate, I also mention that I have some documentation from the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), which calls into question the commitment of the Liberal Party in Victoria to local government. Its local government spokesperson in State Parliament, Mr John Delzoppo, has had some discussions with the Municipal Association of Victoria subsequent to some comments made by a Liberal Party backbencher, a former municipal local councillor, Mr Vin Heffernan, who said: Local councils have never been able to make a dollar, they wouldn't know how to make a dollar if they fell over it. That caused some concern with the Municipal Association of Victoria. As the spokesperson, Mr Delzoppo sent out letters to local councils attempting to explain away the remarks, but there is considerable concern about the fact that those sorts of remarks should be made. Referring again to Mr McGauran's contribution in the other place: he took it for granted, and it is obviously the Liberal Party's determination that it will not see anything done about it, that local government is a creature of State governments. He went on to say that local government is not under threat, but that can be no comfort whatsoever, and is no comfort to local government around Australia, as will be seen when I refer to some further material. Of all the debate in the other place on this issue, it is worth noting the contribution of the honourable member for Sturt, Mr Wilson, who noted that he was the chairman of the Liberal-National Party committee on federalism in earlier years, a representative of the Liberal Party at the Constitutional Convention, and a representative of Parliament on the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations when it was still in existence. He went on to give a clear and sincere picture of the value of local government and its place in the three-tier government system. He went on as far as he could to back up his words by his actions in Parliament-something which should be commended. The contribution of the honourable member for Moncrieff, Mrs Sullivan, was also to be commended. Subsequent to the debate in the House of Representatives, a statement was issued by the Australian Local Government Association, which is not surprising in the circumstances. It objected particularly to the picture that was painted of hundreds of mayors and shire presidents being called to local government versions of the Premiers Conference. The President of the Association, Mr Peter Kyle, said in a statement that these claims were simply untrue and that they were red herrings aimed at diverting voters' attention from the real issue. Senators should note the real issue as seen by the Australian Local Government Association, which is the fact that the Opposition has reneged on its commitment and is now assembling a series of excuses for its actions, some of which I have referred to from the debate in the House of Representatives. I shall now refer further to the response to this from local government organisations, first recalling the contribution of the honourable member for Parkes, Mr Cobb, in the other House, in which he said that it is simply the case that only local government supports this constitutional change. Again, that is extraordinary arrogance and a dismissiveness of local government which is quite unwarranted and has received a due reaction. I shall quote first from the Municipal Association of Victoria, my own State, which has swung into quick action to provide materials to its councils so that the campaign being waged by the Opposition can be countered. It has sent me a copy of the Press release it has been sending to its councils and it notes that it is the opening shot in a concerted battle between now and September to win constitutional recognition for local government. The arguments of the Opposition have not washed with local government. The letter goes on to say that the Association had wanted a debate to be conducted in an apolitical atmosphere, and, of course, a local government organisation would want that. The letter then goes on to say: Unfortunately this is not possible now that the Opposition has announced its intention to campaign for a no vote on the question. As a guiding principle, the MAV has adopted a `what is best for local government' yardstick against which it will measure its conduct in this campaign. As I have already said in my contribution, who better to make the case for local government than local government? The letter says that there will be further information but, in the meantime, it is important to get the public campaign started. It is important to put the next paragraph of the letter on the record. It states: The information concerning the division in the Opposition over this question may well have changed in the time that it takes for this letter to reach you. That is absolutely fascinating and shows the sensitivity that local government people have to what is going on in the Opposition. That shows the level of political awareness of local government. The letter was written on 20 May and it warns councils of goodness knows what the Opposition will be doing by the time the councils receive the letter. The letter concludes: Please update and amend the release as you see fit. The reference to `the division in the Opposition' is in the words of the MAV, not mine. A Press release sent out by the MAV is headed `A bit of respect is not too much to ask'. I have used the term `arrogance' in this debate to describe what I think is the approach of the Opposition on this referendum proposal. Obviously, the MAV has similar feelings. The first line of the Press release says: The Federal Opposition has shown contempt for local communities. It goes on to talk about the division within the Liberal Party, stating: Some Liberals have told us privately that they support the notion of constitutional recognition for local government but they think people will be confused if they advocate a `no' vote for some questions and a `yes' vote for others. Now that's real tokenism. And it's an insult to the collective intelligence of local communities. A bit of respect for the rights of local communities is not too much to expect and I would urge the Opposition to change its stance on this issue. That is revealing stuff coming from a major local government association. I have no doubt that similar Press releases have been going out in other States awaiting a campaign from the umbrella body, the Australian Local Government Association, whose draft Yes case I have with me. The draft rebuts the No case, and the Association sent a fax to me late this afternoon. When I was speaking with the Director of the Australian Local Government Association, she pointed out to me that since the Opposition has been remarkably quick, it believes, to get the No case flying around the country, it felt it had better get in there and support its constituent bodies, as it is now doing. It has a comprehensive Yes case which answers the points that have been made in the debate in the House of Representatives. The case contains three pages refuting the claims that are made in the House of Representatives debate. The salient points for the Yes case are made by local government and not by some Federal politicians who imagine that they know what is best for local government in a typically patronising way, which is particularly true of parties that always thought they were born to rule and that are perhaps starting to get a whiff of that again after recent electoral results. I suggest it would be no more than a whiff if they went back to the born to rule approach of thinking `We know what is best', which is paternalism at its worst. The first point in the Yes case, from local government itself, is very instructive: Constitutional recognition will acknowledge that Australia's federal system comprises three spheres of government working in partnership. No longer will these sentiments be mere rhetoric. The second point is: Federal Constitutional recognition will ensure that Local Government cannot be permanently replaced by State appointed administrators. Consequently, a system of elected Local Government in each State will be guaranteed. Constitutional recognition will not centralise power. On the contrary, it will strengthen the system of decentralised community based government. It points out, as is clear from the wording of the proposition, that each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of each State and empowered to administer and make by-laws for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. The powers of the States are enshrined three times in the proposition that is before us and that will go before the people of Australia. I do not know how many more times the Opposition wants that. The ALGA goes on to say that how and where local government operates will still be determined in the parliaments of the States and so on. It makes a very important point in its fifth point, which states: Federal and State politicians and bureaucrats will be more ready to consult with Local Government on the development and implementation of programs in which Local Government is involved. I think there is no doubt about that. Constitutional recognition means status, which local government has not had before. It talks about new opportunities for local government to work productively with the Commonwealth and the States. It points out that local government is an important element of the public sector. In fact, it states: Local Government's fiscal capacity equates to the combined budget sectors of Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. It cites figures to back that up and its significance. It also points out: Constitutional recognition will not directly affect financial matters such as grants, Local Government taxation and borrowings. It points out in its Yes case, as it does in refuting the No case, that these are issues for resolution at the political level, not in the Constitution. Local government has got it all clear in its mind what is political and what is constitutional. The Opposition clearly has not and is clearly still confused. The ALGA goes on to make the point, which has been made before in this debate, that: If the Constitution were being written for the first time in 1988, there is little doubt that it would reflect today's reality, and acknowledge that Australia's federal system comprises three spheres of government. As I have said, local government is, in the eyes of the Democrats, a very significant tier of government. From the Local Government Association's refuting of the No case I particularly wanted to draw attention to one of the points it makes about the Opposition's argument. The Opposition has often raised the issued that what the Government is trying to do here is water down in some way and centralise in some way aspects of local government. This is the claim made by those who want a No vote on this referendum: Constitutional recognition is part of the Federal Labor Government's secret agenda to impose a network of regional governments across Australia. Local government responds this way, and I think this is important: More than two thirds of Australia's 836 Local Governments are voluntary members of regional associations and work with that form of Local Government regions effectively and happily. I interpose here that in my experience at least many of those voluntary regional organisations of local government bodies are a continuation of, or are modelled on, the Australian Assistance Plan experience of the Whitlam years. I am pleased to see present Senator McLean, who was a participant in that process and who often speaks highly of it, as do many other people of my acquaintance. That it is voluntary is something to be commended and noted. The Local Government Association points to this as positive, not as negative. I simply put on the record that the Australian Democrats are strongly in support of this referendum proposal and that we share local government's astonishment at the sorts of scaremongering tactics that are taking place in this debate with reference to it. I must say that sitting here in the chamber tonight I have been rather astonished to hear Senator Lewis oppose freedom of religion, perhaps a little less astonished to hear him oppose fair elections and quite astonished, as I have already said, to hear him oppose the right of local government to be recognised in the Constitution. I am astounded that he fails to understand the value of a move to four-year terms of office in both Houses of the Federal Parliament. I express the belief, as I am sure other speakers will, that the Australian people will see the merit in the particular proposition to which I have devoted most of my time, and, indeed, in the other propositions. Whilst none of them are absolutely perfect, they are steps in the right direction. They recognise the need for change in a Constitution which, whilst it may have been written by our founding fathers, was not written, nor should it have been, in stone never to be changed at any time in our history. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.35) —The four Bills proposing constitutional change, which are the subject of this cognate debate, are a curious mixture. The first, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, goes to the core of our bicameral federal parliamentary system and seeks to disembowel the ability of the Senate to perform its two essential constitutional responsibilities. Those two responsibilities are, firstly, to be a House of review and, secondly, to be the protector of the interests of the States, and particularly the smaller States. The Bill contains three separate quite dishonestly disguised propositions about which I will speak later in this debate. The second proposal, to give the Federal Government the power to dictate to the States what their electoral laws should be, strikes at the rights of the States as laid down in the Federal Constitution after years of the most meticulous and thorough debate by the drafters of the Constitution. The third, to specifically mention local government in the Federal Constitution, is a piece of meaningless motherhood nonsense that fails to deliver to local government either of the two essential objectives it seeks, namely, the right to deal with the Federal Government direct, and some form of guarantee on revenue sharing between Federal and State governments on the one hand and local government on the other. Let me interpose there to pick up a point that Senator Powell made in her remarks about the policy of the Liberal Party and the National Party and the suggestion that we are in some way backing away from our earlier policy. If she reads the policy documents for the last election properly, she will see that our policy was that we would examine, with State and local government, the most appropriate role for local government. That was the commitment we gave and we in no way back away from that. The fourth referendum Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988, is really three Bills in one, and as such is a dangerous mismatch. It deals with totally unrelated issues-freedom of religion, trial by jury and compensation for property acquisition by government. This seemingly innocuous proposal is in fact an attempt to introduce a Bill of Rights by a back door route. The Australian people will remember that less than two years ago the frontdoor route to a Bill of Rights was shut very firmly by the Senate at the request of, and with the overwhelming support of, the Australian people in perhaps the greatest expression of the voice of the people in Australia's history. All four Bills, whilst containing at least eight separate proposals, have fatal flaws in terms of their constitutional validity, their inconsistency with our federal system and/or their technical drafting. Each of them should be soundly rejected by the Australian people when they are called upon to vote on them later this year. Let me here lay to rest one totally mischievous lie that is being assiduously peddled by certain sections of the media. That lie is that the Liberal and National parties are recommending a No vote to each of the four referendum proposals, rather than recommending one yes and three noes, or two and two or three and one, because we believe that is the most likely way to ensure the defeat of the most important proposal, which is the proposal for four-year parliamentary terms. That is simply untrue. Each of the four Bills is flawed. Each Bill should be rejected on its own merit. I will come back to the details of each Bill shortly. However, before I do so I want to put to the Senate a brief overview. There are several points that should be made which have equal application to all four Bills. The first question we should look at is why the Government has brought these proposals into the Parliament at this late stage in the autumn parliamentary session. Why the indecent haste to rush these Bills through the Parliament without opportunity for adequate debate and reflection? We are talking about some quite fundamental issues here. What does the Government do? In the House of Representatives last week the Government adopted that most undemocratic of all parliamentary procedures-it gagged or guillotined the debate. It refused to allow the debate on these four Bills to continue, despite the fact that these Bills, taken together, constitute major proposed changes to our whole federal system of government. That brings me to the second lie being peddled by sections of the media, namely, that these are non-controversial, unimportant issues. Paul Kelly, for example, was on this line yet again in today's Australian when he wrote: Many people will ask how they- that is, the Liberals- could oppose such unremarkable and moderate reforms. Let me repeat: these are not unremarkable and moderate reforms. One will drastically weaken the ability of the Senate to meet constitutional responsibilities, one will allow the Commonwealth Government to dictate to the States on their own electoral laws, one will introduce a Bill of Rights through the back door and one, whilst on the face of it a piece of meaningless nonsense, may well have the effect of disadvantaging local government as distinct from giving it what many might regard as its due and proper recognition. The fact that these Bills are being put through the Parliament in the closing days of this session is ground for suspicion in itself as to the motives of the Government. That suspicion is magnified when we see that the Government has not even waited for the final report of its own chosen, appointed and hand-picked Constitutional Commission to be completed before it rushes in here with these half-baked proposals. Why did the Government appoint, at great cost, a Constitutional Commission in 1985 to advise it on constitutional change when it is not prepared to wait for the final report of that Commission before bringing into the Parliament certain proposals for fundamental constitutional change? The Senate will recall that the Whitlam Government in 1973 established the Constitutional Convention to bring forward and discuss proposals for constitutional change. That Convention comprised members from the three elected tiers of government. In other words, its members were elected representatives of the people and, therefore, persons responsible to the people. But the Hawke Government in 1985 bypassed the Constitutional Convention and replaced it with its own hand-picked Constitutional Commission. I doubt whether many people would argue that, overall, the ideological bent of the majority of the Commission was left of the centre of the political spectrum. Equally, there can be no doubt that the Hawke Government bypassed the Constitutional Convention and stacked the Constitutional Commission because Labor has always seen the Constitution as blocking its path towards radical reform of social and institutional structures in Australia. This attitude was clearly expressed by Gough Whitlam more than 30 years ago when, in delivering the 1957 Chifley Memorial Lecture, he said: Labor finds itself confronted at every turn by a Constitution framed in such a way as to make it difficult to carry out Labor's objectives and interpreted in such a way as to make it impossible to carry them out. Mr Whitlam, of course, is a member of the Government's hand-picked Constitutional Commission. That Labor Party attitude has not changed in the ensuing 30 years. In 1979 the now Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, in his Boyer Lecture series, described our constitutional arrangements as `anachronistic lunacy'. He had, in particular, the very existence of the States of the Commonwealth. In 1984, in a now famous speech to Labor's Fabian Society, Prime Minister Hawke said that the more general and deeper long range task facing the Labor Government was `the establishing in the mood and mind of the nation pre-eminent acceptance of the naturalness and inevitability of change and reform, as the authentic way of life'. When one takes these several statements of Labor philosophy together, they constitute the essential reasons why Labor wants to change the Constitution. Labor feels constrained by the Constitution in pursuing radical social and institutional reform in this country. As my colleague in the other place, Mr Alasdair Webster, said so accurately in relation to Labor when debating these Bills: . . . would prefer to be free of the constraints of constitutional government in a Federal system, with a bicameral parliament . . . That is what much of this debate is about. The four Bills before us are a mish-mash. One, relating to four-year parliamentary terms, is of fundamental importance to what I have just been saying. The other three are less fundamental, although each in its own way is significant. I am quite sure that the less fundamental Bills are being used as the coating for the poison pill of the parliamentary terms proposal. Introducing these Bills at this time is also good political tactics for the Government. Labor is in desperate shape in the electorate and is deeply divided on policy issues within its own ranks. What better diversionary tactics to adopt in such circumstances than to attempt to sidetrack the attention of the electorate on to other issues and away from the fundamental economic and related issues that we face? It is difficult to escape these conclusions. How else can one explain rationally why the Government would spend $6m on a Constitutional Commission and then not wait for that Commission to produce its final report? Why else would the Government proceed then to spend a further $35m or so on actually conducting the referendums later this year? The sum of $35m is a lot of taxpayers' money, whichever way one looks at it and especially so if one really believes, as some would have us believe, that the proposals are `unremarkable and moderate'. The final general point I want to make before turning to each of the four Bills is that the actual questions that will be asked in the four referendums are highly misleading and are blatantly biased in favour of a yes vote. In a paper delivered to the Ninth Australian Statistical Conference last week, Gary Morgan, the Managing Director of Australia's leading polling organisation, the Roy Morgan Research Centre, and his research director, Michelle Levine, had this to say: There is no doubt that the proposed referendum questions are biased to try to obtain a yes vote. In addition, the questions do not honestly convey the issues being asked . . . Any public opinion polling company who asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government's proposals would completely lose credibility. There are many different ways of asking so-called opinion questions. That is why it is critically important that the voters of Australia be made fully aware of the real content behind the bland and superficially attractive questions that will be put to them in the four referendums. That is the task before the Opposition over the next three or four months between now and the actual polling day. The first question that will be put to voters is: Do you agree that the Constitution should be altered to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament? A yes vote to that seemingly innocuous question would greatly weaken the ability of the Senate to carry out its responsibility to act as a House of review and as a watchdog on the rights of the States. The actual proposal contains four distinct elements but they are hidden in the question. The four elements there are, firstly, increase the maximum term for the House of Representatives from three years to four years; secondly, reduce the maximum term for senators from six years to four years; thirdly, abolish the rotation system for senators whereby half the senators are up for re-election each time; and fourthly, abolish the concept of fixed terms for senators and replace it with the concept that all senators should face the electors each time the House of Representatives is put to an election at the whim of the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he might be and from whatever Party. Those are the direct effects of the first referendum question if it wins a yes vote. Those four provisions are contained in the Bill we are now debating but they will not be presented to the people. The Liberal and National parties agree with the first of these four elements. Of course, we agree that there should be a lengthening of the maximum term of the House of Representatives and we agree that a lengthening to four years is appropriate, but we do not agree with the other three hidden elements in the proposal. By choosing this particular form of the four-year proposal the Government deliberately picked the very one with which it knew the Opposition would not and could not agree. We told the Government that a year ago. There are other ways in which the Government could have approached the four-year terms for the House of Representatives that would have had bipartisan support from the Opposition, but the Government deliberately chose not to do so. Senator Robert Ray —Rubbish. Senator SHORT —The Minister knows perfectly well that that is correct. Over recent years the Senate has played a quite vital role on behalf of the Australian people. It was only because of the position of the Senate that we were able to implement the will of the people by preventing the introduction of the Hawke Government's sinister and Orwellian ID card proposal. A similar situation occurred with the Government's horrendous Bill of Rights proposal. It is now trying to sneak this proposal through the back door as part of this package of referendum Bills. The reason the Senate was able to act in this way, to stand up for the rights of the Australian people and to implement their wishes, was that we have the fixed rotation system, whereby senators have fixed terms of office, not dependent on the political whim of the government of the day, whatever the political colour of that government, and whereby half the total number of senators face the electorate each three years. These two fundamental elements of the existing system provide stability in the Senate plus a degree of independence for senators from day-to-day pressures of political forces-pressures which not infrequently lead to bad decisions being taken for cynical and expedient reasons determined entirely by short-term political considerations rather than the long-term interests of Australia and Australians. If we remove this stability and independence from the Senate we will, in one single stroke, let the Australian Labor Party achieve one of its most sought after agenda items-the destruction of the ability of the Senate to provide checks and balances against the excesses of executive government, the excess of any party bent on radical reform, and the overthrow of our existing social and institutional systems. It is no secret that that is Labor's agenda. The former Attorney-General, the present Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans), made that crystal clear in his maiden speech in this place when he said: The way to abolish the Senate, or at least muzzle it, is to whiteant it from within. That is precisely what this proposal is all about. One of the Government's claimed benefits of the proposal-indeed, perhaps the main rationale for the proposal-is that it would lead to fewer elections. That is a very dubious argument. The way in which the proposal has been framed could well lead to more frequent elections because it removes the Senate constraint from the Prime Minister of the day when deliberating on whether to call an early election. The proposal, as drafted, also suffers from the major disadvantage of almost guaranteeing the continued existence of splinter and minority parties in the Senate, and that is quite patently inconsistent with the desirability of a stable political system. The second referendum question we are being asked to approve is this: Do you agree that the Constitution should be altered to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia? One could well ask, `How could anyone possible disagree with such a proposition?'. I think the answer from most people, certainly on the Liberal side of politics, would be, `Of course we agree with fair and democratic elections. We always have and we always will'. But, as with the first referendum question, this second one also contains major elements which are either misleadingly presented to, or deliberately withheld from, the people. The proposal is that the number of electors in each electorate will be equal when it comes to voting in both lower and upper House elections for all State parliaments, subject to a 10 per cent tolerance factor either side of equality. In essence, this is what we have now for House of Representatives elections for the Federal Parliament and we agree with that so far as the House of Representatives is concerned. It is also what already exists in several of the States, the major exceptions being Queensland and Western Australia. But it is not what we have in the Senate. In the Senate there are 12 senators for each State, totally regardless of the population of the State. Thus Tasmania, with a population of about half a million, returns 12 senators and so do Victoria and New South Wales with populations in excess of three million and four million respectively. That is a provision that was written into the Constitution for very good and valid reasons-equal representation from the States in the upper House. We would not have had a federation without that proposal being accepted. The Government's referendum proposal, though, does not alter the Senate position. The Government is proposing to foist on to the States an electoral system that it is not prepared to adopt for itself. That is unfair, it is discriminatory and it is downright arrogant. The Government's so-called fair elections proposal has two other major defects. The first is that it does not provide for fair elections. Whilst it would lead to more equal numbers of electors in each electorate in Queensland and Western Australia and in the Tasmanian upper House-the numbers in the other States are already fairly equal-it would not tackle the major cause of unfair elections which is the gerrymander. Senator Robert Ray —Oh, rubbish. Senator SHORT —Senator Ray knows that. A gerrymander results when the boundaries between electorates are drawn in such a way as to prevent elections being decided on the basis of 50 per cent of the vote plus one. This is very different from having unequal numbers of electors in each electorate. As we know, that is called malapportionment and that is what the referendum proposal is directed to. But I repeat that the main cause of unfair elections in Australia is the gerrymander, not malapportionment. Senator Robert Ray —Prove it, come on. Give some examples. Senator SHORT —I am coming to that. This Bill does not tackle the problem of the gerrymander at all. Indeed, according to my colleague Dr Wooldridge in the House of Representatives, it is possible that this Bill will increase the gerrymander that exists in Queensland and Western Australia. The extent of gerrymanders around Australia can be seen from the fact that, to win the next Federal election, the Liberal and National parties will require 52 1/2 per cent of the total vote. In Victoria the corresponding figure is 51.3 per cent and in South Australia, 52.2 per cent. The coalition needed 52.8 per cent of the vote to win the New South Wales State election two months ago. The Senate should note that in each of these cases the so-called fair election proposals contained in this Bill already exist in the situations I have just cited. This Bill is obviously aimed at Queensland and Western Australia. In Queensland, Labor needs 51.3 per cent of the vote to win. In Western Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia needs 52.2 per cent to win. All those figures show that Queensland is the least gerrymandered State so far as Labor is concerned. It is the Liberals who suffer from the gerrymander in Queensland, not Labor. The other point to note is that in only one instance does the gerrymander work against Labor. In all other instances it advantages Labor. So much for fair elections! This Bill will do nothing to reduce the unfairness the electoral systems around Australia currently show in Labor's favour. But the other and most damning indictment of this referendum proposal is that it seeks to impose Commonwealth House of Representatives electoral laws on to the States. As the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, said in the debate in the other place last week: I utterly and completely endorse the concept of fair and democratic elections but I hold very strongly to the principle that the conditions governing elections for the States should be a matter for the parliaments of the States. On each of at least three counts this proposal is basically flawed and must be rejected. The third question to be put to the voters is: `Do you approve of altering the Constitution to recognise local government?' In fact, the words proposed to be included in the Constitution do nothing of the kind so far as Commonwealth recognition is concerned. The wording is: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. Honourable senators should note that the word `Commonwealth' is not even mentioned in the clause. There is no reference to revenue sharing arrangements or to the ability of local government to deal directly with the Federal Government. There is no guarantee against wrongful dismissal of a local council by a vindictive State government or any of the other matters which local government is seeking to have recognised. There is not even a definition of local government. The constitutional lawyers will have a field day with this proposal if it is passed. Quite frankly, the proposal is an insult to local government, even though it was obviously designed as a worthless sop. Worse though, through its very wording it even more firmly entrenches local government as a creature of the States, a shadow from which they have for years quite rightly been struggling to emerge. There is no doubt that, when it comes to comparing actual policies towards local government, the Liberal and National Party record stands tall and proud. It was a Liberal and National Party government that introduced personal income tax sharing, that introduced the bicentennial road funding program and that provided a forum for local government to be heard. Senator Maguire —We introduced that. Senator SHORT —It was part of the federalism policy of the Fraser Government. The Labor Party tried to chop out local government and substitute regional government. Where it really counts, for example, in road funding, the Hawke Government has slashed road funding to local governments by 25 per cent in real terms over the past five years. It is about time this Government ceased its meaningless, insulting tokenism towards local government and instead developed some policies of real benefit to this vitally important third tier of government. Time will prevent me from commenting too much on the fourth referendum proposal which covers three totally unrelated matters, other than to say, as I said earlier, that it constitutes an attempt to introduce a Bill of Rights through the back door. But on the package as a whole I conclude where I commenced: all four referendum Bills are fatally flawed. They are designed to pave the way for the removal of constitutional restraint over the Federal Government. They dramatically weaken the ability of the Senate to carry out its responsibilities on behalf of the people of Australia. They do not provide for fairer elections. They do not assist local government in any way whatsoever, and they are a thoroughly dishonest attempt to introduce a Bill of Rights which has already been comprehensively rejected by the Australian people. All four proposals not only deserve to be defeated when put to the people but, in the interests of our federal system and the integrity of our basic statute law, namely, the Constitution, they must be defeated. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(10.05) —This evening, we are debating the Government's four referendum Bills-the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988, and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988. We are considering also another Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987. In opening my remarks, I place on record that these Bills do not in any way give more powers to the government of the day, despite the nonsense that has been parroted tonight. In fact, they are not designed to give advantage to any political party; rather, their only concern is to guarantee the democratic rights of the Australian people. Four fundamental rights are addressed by the Bills which will give effect to these referenda proposals. The first is: the people's right to a more stable, responsible government at the national level. The second right is the people's right to vote at free and fair elections-cleaning up the abuses of the voting system in the Queensland Legislative Assembly, cleaning up the abuses of voting in the upper Houses in Tasmania and Western Australia and, in those ways, dragging those recalcitrant States into the twentieth century with regard to electoral reform. The third right is the people's right to have the important third tier of government-I refer to local government-recognised as part of the Constitution. The fourth right is the people's right to have certain inalienable rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Australian Constitution, including trial by jury, just compensation for compulsorily acquired property and freedom of religion. These rights are taken up in the four referendum Bills. The Government recognises that the Constitution is not an immutable, fossilised relic, but a living document which is capable of change and adaptation to the needs of the nation. The changes proposed in these Bills seek to establish in the Constitution a number of basic political, civil, judicial and religious rights. They are rights and freedoms which are central to every democratic nation-rights such as one vote one value which are part of the democratic consensus of parliamentary systems of government around the world. The Government had hoped that all political parties would respect this democratic consensus and approach the Bills in the same spirit of non-partisanship. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Liberal and National parties have decided to turn the referendum Bills into a political football. They have decided to oppose all four Bills for no other reason than to gain short term political advantage. They have turned the debate on constitutional change into a grubby little exercise of political posturing. By opposing the democratic rights contained in the Bills, the coalition hoped to score a few cheap political points off the Government. But, in doing so, the Liberals and Nationals have exposed the full extent of their political bankruptcy and opportunism. The reality is that the Liberals and Nationals are desperately looking for an issue on which to defeat the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That is the reality: they are not looking at the long term benefits of these proposals, but simply are desperately looking for an issue on which they can try to defeat the Prime Minister. They are desperately trying to turn the process of political and constitutional reform into a referendum on the Prime Minister. That is how one should examine it. They are simply trying to turn it into a referendum on the performance of the Government. Because they have had so many defeats over the last five years, Mr Howard is so unpopular as a leader and the coalition is hopelessly divided and torn apart, they want a diversion. They want to divert attention from their internal problems. They do not care about the long term advantages and benefits for the people of Australia. They want short term, cheap political gains. I have noted, as have members of the Australian community, that a few of the more principled members of the Liberal Party have not voted with the Opposition on some of these Bills in another place. It is a pity that other members of the Liberal Party did not have the courage of their convictions to defy the Opposition, the Howard leadership and National Party vetoes. Perhaps in September a number of Liberal members of parliament will vote yes in the secrecy of the voting cubicles. I would be fascinated to be a fly on the wall in some of those voting cubicles. I would imagine that a number of members of the Opposition will vote yes to these proposals in the secrecy of the voting compartments when referendum day comes around. The Government's proposal contained in the parliamentary terms Bill is for a four-year maximum term for both Houses, with elections to be held concurrently for the Senate and the House of Representatives. The proposal for a four-year maximum term for both Houses will mean greater stability, fewer elections and better government in Australia, because Australia has had far too many elections. Since 1945, on my calculations, expensive elections have occurred on average about every two years. That is the reality in this country. In current dollar terms elections cost some $50m to conduct. Several Australian State parliaments have four-year terms. That is the reality. This proposal is not coming from outer space and foisting something new on the Australian landscape. The fact is that several State governments have four-year terms. A majority of democratic nations around the world have four-year or five-year terms. I instance in the last week or so the run-off in the French presidential elections. President Francois Mitterrand was elected for not four or five years but seven years. Yet the rabble in this place is trying to turn the clock back on even trying to get a four-year term for Australian parliaments. A four-year term would give governments more time to plan in a very complex age. It would give them more time to implement policies so that they could take more difficult, long-term decisions about Australia's future without having one eye on the poll results all the time. Frequent elections may force business to defer important planning decisions. Investors' confidence could be undermined because of uncertainty about economic policy with frequent elections occurring. There is a need for greater stability in government in Australia. It is critical if Australia is to face the economic challenges of the next century. I note in passing that the Government has decided not to propose a fixed minimum term for Parliament. There have been occasions when matters of national importance have had to be taken immediately to the people. Fixed terms clearly would reduce the powers of this House. Those opposite go on about weakening the powers of this House. Fixed terms would have done that. They have not referred to that in this debate, but that policy was not adopted by the Government. The Liberal and National Party objections to this Bill centre on the Senate's powers. They claim that the Senate's powers would be reduced or undermined. But the Senate's power would not be affected in any way by the proposal for four-year terms. My view of the situation is that the Senate's powers probably would be strengthened because senators could argue to the community that they had been elected more recently and therefore their views should be heeded more by the community. I think that is a very strong argument. The reverse of the position taken by the coalition parties probably would apply: the fact that all the Senate had been elected more recently is a very strong selling point to the community and would give senators enormously more credibility in putting their views and asking for them to be supported in the community. Under these proposals, the Senate still would be able to amend and reject any legislation, including Supply. The Government rejected the Constitutional Commission's recommendation which would have removed the Senate's power to block Supply in the first three years of a parliament. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, claims that he would have given bipartisan support to this Bill if the Government had agreed to keep Senate terms at twice the length of House of Representatives terms. That is, with a four-year House of Representatives term, I imagine he was talking about an eight-year term for senators. That would result in a situation in which senators probably would not have to face more than three elections in a quarter of a century. I am sure that would be unacceptable to the Australian community. It would be an unwise, unhealthy and unacceptable position. What lurks behind the objections of the Liberals and Nationals to the four-year term concept is naked self-interest and unbridled political opportunism because coalition members fear that the four-year term for the Senate would mean an end to their ability to block the Supply of an elected government in the House of Representatives. They want the power to force an election for the House of Representatives without all senators having to face a simultaneous election. That is what it boils down to. At present, only half the Senate is required to face the people if the Senate blocks Supply and forces an election for the House of Representatives. This anomaly in the Constitution was ruthlessly exploited by the Liberals and Nationals in November 1975. The coalition used its majority in the Senate to block Supply of the Whitlam Government and force an election in the belief that the expected half-Senate election would not affect its majority in the Senate. The Liberals and Nationals want to retain the privilege of being able to force an election without facing the full political consequences of their action. At present, a government can win an election, forced by the Senate, in the House of Representatives but still be left facing a hostile majority in the Senate-despite winning that majority in the House of Representatives. That is one of the key propositions: a government could win an election forced by the Senate but still be left facing a hostile majority in the Senate under the present arrangements. The Hawke Government is simply asking the Australian people to close this loophole in the Australian Constitution. The Government's proposal will mean that all senators will face the people simultaneously with the House of Representatives. If the Senate blocks Supply and forces an election, it will have to answer to the people for its actions: all senators will face re-election at the same time as members of the House of Representatives. I would like to turn briefly to the third question being proposed; that is, the recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. In my State of South Australia I have noted that over the period since this was first mooted it has been an extremely popular proposal amongst officers and members of that vital third tier of Australian government, local government. I must say that over the years I think I have had more representation from local governments on this subject than on any other ranging from the councils in the south-east of my State to those in the very far west. This proposal for constitutional recognition has been and is very popular. I am greatly disappointed by the position taken by the Opposition over this particular proposal. In fact, today I sent a letter to local government representatives in my State expressing my disappointment and suggesting that they send a `please explain' letter to Liberal members in South Australia telling them to own up and to try to justify this extraordinary decision on local government recognition. There is a certain flaw in the Opposition's position on local government recognition. The Opposition is describing our third proposal as tokenism despite the very strong wishes of local government-I am sure Senator Reynolds as Minister for Local Government is aware of this-which overwhelmingly supports it. Local government does not believe, as Mr Howard would have us believe, that it is tokenism. We can only instance the comments made by the Australian Local Government Association and its amazement and disappointment. A real slap has been given to local government by this Opposition on this proposal for recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. So there it is: tokenism is the response of the Liberal Party to the third referendum proposal; tokenism on the recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. We can contrast that position with the Opposition's position on the first referendum question; that is, on four-year terms. It is not saying that that is tokenism, it is saying we are going too far. So, when the Australian people go to consider two referendum questions on the ballot paper in September, the Liberals will, on the first one, be saying that the Government is going too far and, on the third one, be saying that it is tokenism and that we are not going far enough. What an internal contradiction. What an untenable position for an opposition to be in. Opposition members are being led up the garden path by Mr Howard. They are in a very awkward position because there is a total contradiction in their positions on two questions on the referendum ballot paper. On the face of the position of this referendum question one can only conclude that if they will not support this referendum it is hard to see their supporting any beneficial programs for local government. We have to contrast the Opposition's position on these proposals-a position which has been cobbled together subject to the veto of the National Party-with the position of the Labor Party when it was in opposition. I take honourable senators back to 1977 when Mr Fraser was Prime Minister and Mr Howard was a senior Minister in his Government. He was not quite Treasurer and he had not mucked up the Australian economy at that stage. On 21 May 1977, 11 years ago last weekend, Mr Howard and his Government put four referendum questions to the Australian people-for simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, for the filling of casual vacancies in the Senate, proposals that citizens of the Australian Territories should be able to vote in referendums, and provisions for retiring ages of judges. That was in 1977. The Liberals were in power; the Labor Party was in opposition. We went out and supported those proposals. We did not try to turn the referendum campaign into some sort of censure of the Fraser Government. We did not try to take the irresponsible position of looking for some way of defeating the government of the day by finding an issue on which we could win. We went out and actively campaigned for those proposals. Right around Australia, in the cities, the towns and the small communities, we urged people to support those referendums. I am pleased to say that three out of the four were carried in 1977 with the support of the government of the day, the Liberal Party, and the Opposition Labor Party. That is the contrast between 1977 and our bicentennial year, 1988. When we try to make some modest improvements in the Australian Constitution we find this incredible contrast between the behaviour of the Liberals in opposition and the Labor Party in opposition in 1977. In 1977 we had a constructive Labor opposition that went out and campaigned for those referendum proposals. In 1988 we have a destructive and negative Liberal opposition, one which opposes simply for the sake of opposing. That is what it comes down to; it is a negative, knocking, carping opposition which opposes for the sake of opposing. The Liberals and the Nationals do not constitute an alternative government. They just do not measure up. They are just a bunch of destructive, disunited no-hopers. Their referendum case has been hastily cobbled together and the people will pass judgment on it in September. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.22) —Obviously Senator Maguire, who has just sat down, was terrified to give the people of Australia his views on the whole four questions the Government is putting in this referendum because the questions in the referendum in this bicentennial year are nothing but a fraud. So Senator Maguire has chosen to speak about only two and has completely ignored the second and fourth questions. He spoke about the divisions within the Liberal Party of Australia, because a couple of members of the House of Representatives chose to abstain from voting. He did not talk about the fact that the Australian Labor Party is in complete shambles about the privatisation issue or about the complete shambles of the Labor Party on the education proposal of Mr Wran. Senator Tambling —What about uranium? Senator WALTERS —Senator Maguire did not speak about the complete shambles over the uranium issue where the Labor Party cannot agree on anything-but he speaks about a couple of House of Representatives members who chose not to vote on one question that was put. Fortunately, it is not a case of the Government having the numbers to push these questions through the Parliament. On this occasion it can get them through only with the agreement of the people. There is no likelihood in the whole wide world that the people will trust this mob enough to put those questions through. In New South Wales the people did not trust the Labor Party and threw it out because they had had sufficient of it. Look at what happened at the last couple of by-elections; the people of Australia just do not trust this mob and there is no likelihood in the world of the Government getting its way on the Constitution questions. The Government has put up four questions. It has worded them for the best possible effect for itself. So people such as Gary Morgan have complained. He said: It's appalling that on such a vital and serious issue as change to the Australian Constitution that Labor should seek to mislead people to get the result it wants. He went on to say that any public opinion company: . . . who asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility. He goes on: There is no doubt that the questions to be asked bear little relationship to the actual legislation Labor proposes to introduce if it secures a `Yes' vote. He says: The most obvious and glaring attempt to mislead is contained in the question about `one vote: one value', which asks whether Australians want `fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia'. He also says: Of course people want `fair and democratic elections'-but the question fails to put some vitally related issues. For instance it fails to ask whether Australians want Canberra to impose control over State elections, which this proposal would introduce; or whether Australians want the practice of political gerrymander through carefully drawn election boundaries to end, an issue which this proposal does not address at all. It is for this reason, that this Government is trying to work a swiftie with the forming of its question, that the people would never trust it, and there is no way they will vote for the questions. Let us look at the questions the Government has put. Question No. 1: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament? That question does not even mention that the Senate would be stripped of its powers or that the Government is asking for four years when in its period of four years and four months it has held three elections. Yet it is now asking for a four-year term. It has not used one of its three-year terms. How can it possibly go to the people and ask for an extension to a four-year term? Let us look at question No. 2: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia? What a have. As Gary Morgan says, it is an insult to the people out there. Of course everybody wants free and democratic elections. But the Government does not mention one vote one value or the fact that this Government can draw boundaries and cause gerrymanders. It does not talk about the fact that for us to win power federally, we have to win 53 per cent of the vote. Yet it talks about the Queensland gerrymander where Labor in Queensland has to win only 51.4 per cent of the vote. Question No. 3 states: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government? Naturally everybody would say, `Yes, give local government a go'. But this referendum does nothing-and the question certainly does not say this-for local government. It is a symbolic gesture and nothing else. But the phrasing of the question does not give that inference. Then we get on to question No. 4. It states: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government? Anybody would think that we did not have freedom of religion and trial by jury. Of course Australians have those benefits and rights. There is a very great danger if this Government or the people of Australia allow that sort of question to go through. If the Government were serious about freedoms it should put the question: Do you allow people the freedom not to join a union? That is the sort of freedom people out there are interested in. They know they have freedom of religion and trial by jury but the Government will not allow them the freedom not to join a union. That is the sort of freedom the people are interested to know whether the Government will give them. I will start from the beginning and go through the questions in detail. Debate interrupted. 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 papers were tabled: Audit Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 80. Fisheries Act- Copies of an Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the East Australian Development Fishing Company Pty Ltd, dated 4 May 1988. Fisheries Notice-No. 213-South Eastern Trawl Fishery-Prohibition relating to the taking of Gemfish. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 81. Public Service Act-Determinations 1988 Nos 54, 57, 58, 61-68, 71-73. Governor-General's Proclamation-Commencement of an Act: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following section of an Act to come into operation on the date specified: Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988-Section 11-6 May 1988 (Gazette No. S129, 6 May 1988).